arX

iv:c

ond-

mat

/951

0014

v1 2

9 Se

p 19

95

One-dimensional Fermi liquids

Johannes Voit

Bayreuther Institut fur Makromolekulforschung (BIMF)

and Theoretische Physik 1

Universitat Bayreuth

D-95440 Bayreuth (Germany)1

and Institut Laue-Langevin

F-38042 Grenoble (France)

submitted to Reports on Progress in Physics on

November 19, 1994

last revision and update on

February 1, 2008

1Present address

Abstract

We review the progress in the theory of one-dimensional (1D) Fermi liquids which has

occurred over the past decade. The usual Fermi liquid theory based on a quasi-particle

picture, breaks down in one dimension because of the Peierls divergence in the particle-

hole bubble producing anomalous dimensions of operators, and because of charge-spin

separation. Both are related to the importance of scattering processes transferring finite

momentum. A description of the low-energy properties of gapless one-dimensional quan-

tum systems can be based on the exactly solvable Luttinger model which incorporates

these features, and whose correlation functions can be calculated. Special properties of

the eigenvalue spectrum, parameterized by one renormalized velocity and one effective

coupling constant per degree of freedom fully describe the physics of this model. Other

gapless 1D models share these properties in a low-energy subspace. The concept of a

“Luttinger liquid” implies that their low-energy properties are described by an effective

Luttinger model, and constitutes the universality class of these quantum systems. Once

the mapping on the Luttinger model is achieved, one has an asymptotically exact solution

of the 1D many-body problem. Lattice models identified as Luttinger liquids include the

1D Hubbard model off half-filling, and variants such as the t − J- or the extended Hub-

bard model. Also 1D electron-phonon systems or metals with impurities can be Luttinger

liquids, as well as the edge states in the quantum Hall effect.

We discuss in detail various solutions of the Luttinger model which emphasize different

aspects of the physics of 1D Fermi liquids. Correlation functions are calculated in detail

using bosonization, and the relation of this method to other approaches is discussed. The

correlation functions decay as non-universal power-laws, and scaling relations between

their exponents are parameterized by the effective coupling constant. Charge-spin sepa-

ration only shows up in dynamical correlations. The Luttinger liquid concept is developed

from perturbations of the Luttinger model. Mainly specializing to the 1D Hubbard model,

we review a variety of mappings for complicated models of interacting electrons onto Lut-

tinger models, and thereby obtain their correlation functions. We also discuss the generic

behaviour of systems not falling into the Luttinger liquid universality class because of

gaps in their low-energy spectrum. The Mott transition provides an example for the tran-

sition from Luttinger to non-Luttinger behaviour, and recent results on this problem are

summarized. Coupling chains by interactions or tunneling allows transverse coherence

to establish in the single- or two-particle dynamics, and drives the systems away from a

Luttinger liquid. We discuss the influence of charge-spin separation and of the anomalous

dimensions on the transverse dynamics of the electrons. The edge states in the quan-

i

tum Hall effect provide a realization of a modified, chiral Luttinger liquid whose detailed

properties differ from those of the standard model. The article closes with a summary

of experiments which can be interpreted in favour of Luttinger liquid-correlations in the

“normal” state of quasi-1D organic conductors and superconductors, charge density wave

systems, and semiconductors in the quantum Hall regime.

ii

Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Purpose and structure of this review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Fermi liquid theory and its failure in one dimension 8

2.1 The Fermi liquid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2 Breakdown of Fermi liquid theory in one dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3 The Luttinger model 14

3.1 Low-energy phenomenology in 1D – the Luttinger model . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1.1 Ground state and elementary excitations of 1D fermions . . . . . . 14

3.1.2 Tomonaga-Luttinger Hamiltonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.1.3 Symmetries and conservation laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2 Boson solution of the Luttinger model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.2.1 Diagonalization of Hamiltonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2.2 Bosonization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.3 Physical Properties of the Luttinger Model – Thermodynamics and Corre-

lation Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.3.1 Thermodynamics and transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.3.2 Single- and two-particle correlation functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.4 Dynamical correlations: the spectral properties of Luttinger liquids . . . . 36

3.5 Alternative methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.5.1 Green function methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.5.2 Other bosonic schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.6 Conformal field theory and bosonization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.6.1 Conformal invariance at a critical point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.6.2 The Gaussian model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4 The Luttinger Liquid 56

4.1 The conjecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.2 Luttinger model with nonlinear dispersion – the emergence of higher har-

monics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.3 Backward and Umklapp scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4.4 Lattice models: Hubbard & Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

iii

4.4.1 Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.4.2 Bethe Ansatz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.4.3 Low-energy properties of one-dimensional lattice models . . . . . . 69

4.5 Electron-phonon interaction and impurity scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

4.6 Transport in Luttinger liquids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4.6.1 Electron-electron scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4.6.2 Electron-impurity scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4.6.3 Electron-phonon scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

4.7 The notion of a Landau-Luttinger liquid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

5 Alternatives to the Luttinger liquid: spin gaps, the Mott transition, and

phase separation 98

5.1 Spin gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

5.2 The Mott transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

5.3 Phase separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

6 Extensions of the Luttinger Liquid 109

6.1 Multi-component models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

6.2 Crossover to higher dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

6.3 Edge states in the quantum Hall effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

7 The normal state of quasi-one-dimensional metals – a Luttinger liquid?134

7.1 Organic conductors and superconductors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

7.2 Inorganic charge density wave materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

7.3 Semiconductor heterostructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

8 Summary 141

iv

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Motivation

Strongly correlated fermions are an important problem in solid state physics. Over the

last one or two decades, experiments on many classes of materials have provided evidence

that strong correlations are a central ingredient for the understanding of their physical

properties. Among them are the heavy fermion compounds, the high-Tc superconductors,

a variety of intimately related organic metals, superconductors, and insulators, just to

name a few. Also in normal metals, the interactions between the electrons are rather

strong, although the correlations may be much weaker than in the systems mentioned

before. The effective dimension of the electron gas plays an important role in correlating

interacting fermions, and the materials listed are essentially three-(3D), two-(2D), and

one-dimensional (1D), respectively. Correlations are also very important in semiconduc-

tor heterostructures and quantum wires, being two- or one-dimensional, including the

Quantum Hall regime.

The theoretical description of strongly interacting electrons poses a formidable prob-

lem. Exact solutions of specific models usually are impossible, exception made for certain

one-dimensional models to be discussed later. Fortunately, such exact solutions are rarely

required (and more rarely even practical) when comparing with experiment. Most mea-

surements, in fact, only probe correlations on energy scales small compared to the Fermi

energy EF so that only the low-energy sector of a given model is of importance. More-

over, only at low energies can we hope to excite only a few degrees of freedom, for which

a meaningful comparison to theoretical predictions can be attempted.

Correlated fermions in three dimensions are a well studied problem. Their theo-

retical description, by Fermi liquid theory, is approximate but well understood [1, 2].

It becomes an asymptotically exact solution for low energies and small wavevectors

(E → EF , |k| → kF , T → 0). The limitation to low energies is instrumental here

because, together with Fermi statistics, it implies that the phase space for excitations is

severely restricted. In one dimension, there is a variety of exactly solvable models, which

have been known for quite a time, but a deeper understanding of their mutual relation-

ships and their relevance for describing the generic low-energy physics, close to the 1D

1

Fermi surface, has emerged only rather recently. These relations as well as the properties

of such one-dimensional Fermi liquids, or following Haldane “Luttinger liquids” [3], are

the main subjects of this review article. Here we shall use the terms “one-dimensional

Fermi liquids” and “Luttinger liquids” synonymously, although, as we show below, Fermi

liquid behaviour as it is established in 3D is not possible in 1D.

Fermi liquid theory is based on (but not exhausted by) a picture of quasi-particles

evolving out of the particles (holes) of a Fermi gas upon adiabatically switching on in-

teractions [1, 2]. They are in one-to-one correspondence with the bare particles and,

specifically, carry the same quantum numbers and obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. The free

Fermi gas thus is the solvable model on which Fermi liquid theory is built. The electron-

electron interaction has three main effects: (i) it renormalizes the kinematic parameters of

the quasi-particles such as the effective mass, and the thermodynamic properties (specific

heat, susceptibility), described by the Landau parameters F a,sn ; (ii) it gives them a finite

lifetime diverging, however, as τ ∼ (E−EF )−2 as the Fermi surface is approached, so that

the quasi-particles are robust against small displacements away from EF ; (iii) it introduces

new collective modes. The existence of quasi-particles formally shows up through a finite

jump zkFof the momentum distribution function n(k) at the Fermi surface, corresponding

to a finite residue of the quasi-particle pole in the electron’s Green function.

One-dimensional Fermi liquids are very special in that they retain a Fermi surface

(if defined as the set of points where the momentum distribution or its derivatives have

singularities) enclosing the same k-space volume as that of free fermions, in agreement

with Luttinger’s theorem [4]. However, there are no fermionic quasi-particles, and their

elementary excitations are rather bosonic collective charge and spin fluctuations dispers-

ing with different velocities. An incoming electron decays into such charge and spin

excitations which then spatially separate with time (charge-spin separation). The corre-

lations between these excitations are anomalous and show up as interaction-dependent

nonuniversal power-laws in many physical quantities where those of ordinary metals are

characterized by universal (interaction independent) powers.

To be more specific, a list of salient properties of such 1D Fermi liquids includes: (i)

a continuous momentum distribution function n(k), varying with as | k − kF |α with an

interaction-dependent exponent α, and a pseudogap in the single-particle density of states

∝| ω |α, consequences of the non-existence of fermionic quasi-particles (the quasi-particle

residue vanishes as zk ∼ |k − kF |α as k → kF ); (ii) similar power-law behaviour in all

correlation functions, specifically in those for superconducting and spin or charge den-

sity wave fluctuations, with universal scaling relations between the different nonuniversal

exponents, which depend only on one effective coupling constant per degree of freedom;

(iii) finite spin and charge response at small wavevectors, and a finite Drude weight in

the conductivity; (iv) charge-spin separation; (v) persistent currents quantized in units of

2kF . All these properties can be described in terms of only two effective parameters per

degree of freedom which take over in 1D the role of the Landau parameters familiar from

Fermi liquid theory.

The reasons for these peculiar properties are found in the very special Fermi surface

topology of 1D fermions producing both singular particle-hole response and severe conser-

2

vation laws. In a 1D chain, one has simply two Fermi “points” ±kF , and the Fermi surface

of an array of chains consists of two parallel sheets (in the absence of interchain hopping).

In both cases, one has perfect nesting, namely one complete Fermi sheet can be trans-

lated onto the other by a single wavevector ±2kF . This produces a singular particle-hole

response at 2kF , the well-known Peierls instability [5]. This type of response is assumed

finite in Fermi liquid theory but, in 1D, is divergent for repulsive forward scattering (or

attractive backscattering, the case considered by Peierls), leading to a breakdown of the

Fermi liquid description. In addition, we have, as in 3D, the BCS singularity for attrac-

tive interactions [6]. On the other hand, the disjoint Fermi surface gives a well-defined

dispersion, i.e. particle-like character, to the low-energy particle-hole excitations. They

now can be taken as the building blocks upon which to construct a description of the 1D

low-energy physics.

These properties are generic for one-dimensional Fermi liquids but particularly promi-

nent in a 1D model of interacting fermions proposed by Luttinger [7] and Tomonaga [8]

and solved exactly by Mattis and Lieb [9]. All correlation functions of the Luttinger

model can be computed exactly, so that one has direct access to all physical properties

of interest. The notion of a “Luttinger liquid” was coined by Haldane to describe these

universal low-energy properties of gapless 1D quantum systems, and to emphasize that an

asymptotic (ω → 0, q → 0) description can be based on the Luttinger model in much the

same way as the Fermi liquid theory in 3D is based on the free Fermi gas. The basic ideas

and procedures had been discussed earlier by Efetov and Larkin [10] but passed largely

unnoticed. The name “Tomonaga – Luttinger liquid” might be more appropriate to give

credit to Tomonaga’s important early contribution but has not become widely popular

today.

Despite this apparently very different set of physical properties, there are also sim-

ilarities in the structures of Fermi and Luttinger liquids. Some concepts make these

similarities particularly apparent: conformal field theory, where we essentially exploit the

fact that both Fermi and Luttinger liquids (the former in 1D, of course) are critical, in

the language of the theory of phase transitions, and possess the same central charge; a

description of both theories based on Ward identities (i.e. symmetries and conservation

laws), and the notion of a “Landau-Luttinger liquid”, where one formulates a Fermi liquid

picture for the pseudo-particles appearing in the exact Bethe-Ansatz solution of models

like the 1D Hubbard model. Other methods, often more suitable for the practical calcu-

lations required by a solid state physicist, like bosonization, more strongly emphasize the

differences between Fermi and Luttinger liquids.

In two dimensions, the applicability of Fermi liquid theory, specifically to the high-Tc

problem, is quite controversial. In fact, much of the recent interest in Luttinger liquids

is due to Anderson’s observation that the normal state properties of the 2D high-Tc su-

perconductors are strikingly different from all known metals and cannot be reconciled

with Fermi-liquid theory; they are more similar to properties of 1D models [11]. An-

derson proposed that the essential physics be contained in the 2D Hubbard model and

suggested a picture of a “tomographic Luttinger liquid” for the ground state and the

low-energy excitations of this model, building on Haldane’s earlier work in 1D, to give

3

a more systematic basis to these conjectured non-Fermi liquid properties of the high-Tc

superconductors. Arguments have been advanced, however, also in favour of Fermi-liquid

physics [12]. In addition a theory somewhat intermediate between Fermi and Luttinger

liquids, a “marginal Fermi liquid” has been proposed [13], where the quasi-particle residue

zk vanishes logarithmically as k → kF . (We parenthetically note that there is no simple

solvable model, like the Fermi gas, or the Luttinger model, onto which one could build the

marginal Fermi liquid phenomenology [13]. Very recent work seems to indicate, however,

that certain impurity models do produce marginal Fermi liquid behaviour [14].)

While the relevance of Anderson’s ideas is still quite controversial and no unambigu-

ous formal justification has been published to date, they have refocussed attention on

1D models as paradigms for the breakdown of Fermi-liquid theory: there are few other

instances where this has been established firmly. The main progress of the last years, to

be reviewed here, is related to the realization that, in 1D, a variety of models allows es-

sentially exact calculations of the physical properties of “exotic” non-Fermi-liquid metals.

Emphasis has been directed in two main directions. (i) The relation of models defined on a

lattice, such as the 1D Hubbard model, to continuum theories of the Tomonaga-Luttinger

type. There had been a widespread opinion, that the lattice models would be appropriate

to model the limit of strong electron-electron interactions, while the field theories would

be better suited for weak-coupling situations. It has now become clear that this is not so,

and that the continuum theories rather are the asymptotic low-energy limits of the lattice

models even at arbitrarily strong coupling. Moreover, this mapping has provided us with

several algorithms to extract the effective parameters of the continuum models from the

(either Bethe Ansatz or numerical) solution of the lattice models. It therefore provides

an asymptotically exact solution to the 1D many-body problem. We now can compute

essentially all correlation functions for lattice models, an impossible task if one wanted to

use the lattice solution directly. (ii) The calculation of physical properties from the now

known correlation function allows to work out the distinctive difference of such Luttinger

liquids from the predictions of Fermi liquid theory in higher dimensions, so as to get tools

for the diagnosis of non-Fermi liquid behaviour.

With the general excitement in the community over the spectacular physics of the high-

Tc superconductors, it has been somewhat forgotten that there are many families of organic

and inorganic quasi-1D metals [15, 16] which do deviate strikingly from Fermi-liquid

behaviour (at least from ordinary metals) in their normal state, and undergo a variety of

low-temperature phase transitions into, e. g., charge or spin density wave (CDW/SDW)

insulating phases or even become superconducting. The normal state properties of these

materials are often highly anisotropic and justify application of 1D theory. We therefore

possess a laboratory playground where we can confront theoretical evaluations of the

distinctive properties of such “Luttinger liquids” with experimental reality – in a situation

where the theoretical basis (namely one-dimensionality) is quite firmly established from

experiment.

There is thus at least a threefold motivation to study models of 1D interacting elec-

trons: (i) The search for a coherent description of the quasi-1D metals whose “exotic”

properties have been studied over nearly two decades and which continue to be the focus

4

of intense experimental efforts. (ii) 1D models as a paradigm for “metallic” systems which

are not Fermi liquids. The detailed calculations possible here will hopefully sharpen our

understanding of critical requirements for the breakdown of Fermi-liquid theory in gen-

eral, and how such scenarios translate into experimental reality. There are only a few

established examples of non-Fermi liquid metals in higher dimension such as the multi-

channel Kondo problem, but even these reduce, due to the spherical symmetry commonly

assumed, to effective 1D problems [17]. (iii) The possibility of finding exact solutions to

nontrivial many-body problems.

1.2 Purpose and structure of this review

This article will present a practical introduction to Luttinger liquids. It attempts to

combine a review of the progress of the last couple of years with a self-contained and

pedagogical presentation of the Luttinger model, its solution, and its properties (i.e.

correlation functions) and especially emphasize bosonization as a simple practical means

both to solve the model and to calculate correlation functions. Based on this, we carry on

to the notion of a Luttinger liquid and a discussion of the various methods employed to

map a complicated 1D many-body problem onto the relatively simple Luttinger model.

For all models to be discussed, the emphasis will be on their properties, i.e. correlation

functions, which ultimately can be compared with experiment. I also hope to demonstrate

that the Luttinger liquid often is a useful device if none of the exact nonperturbative

methods to compute correlation exponents works: incorporating all essential features of

the 1D Fermi liquid, it is presumably the best possible starting point for a renormalization

group analysis of the problem at hand.

On the other hand, we shall be quite schematic concerning the methods used to achieve

an exact solution of the (lattice) models we are interested in, such as the Bethe Ansatz

or numerical diagonalization techniques. We shall be more concerned with the various

methods which have been invented to extract effective Luttinger parameters given a cer-

tain type of solution of the starting models, to compare their virtues and drawbacks

and emphasize their complementarity. Moreover, we do not attempt to present a com-

plete overview of the numerous 1D models used to describe strongly correlated electrons.

Rather, we shall concentrate on a few of them, most often the paradigmatic Hubbard

model. The methods discussed often can be applied without significant changes to other

models the reader might be more interested in.

The field of 1D Fermi liquids is not new. Stimulated by and stimulating the research on

quasi-1D organic conductors in the seventies and early eighties, a number of useful review

articles has been available for some time. The meanwhile classical reviews of Solyom [18]

and Emery [19] contain much material on the use of renormalization group (with respect

to a 1D Fermi gas) to treat the singularities generated perturbatively by the 1D inter-

actions. There is also material on the solution of the Tomonaga-Luttinger model either

by bosonization (in a somewhat approximate but for many purposes sufficient form) and

through the use of Ward identities. We are extremely brief on papers duely covered there.

5

Our presentation here will be limited to abelian bosonization. Nonabelian bosonization,

retaining manifestly the SU(2)-invariance in the spin sector, is reviewed by Affleck [20].

Firsov, Prigodin, and Seidel [21] and Bourbonnais and Caron [22] more strongly emphasize

phase transitions in real materials made of coupled 1D chains, and especially the paper by

Bourbonnais and Caron gives a very modern presentation combining functional integral

representations with renormalization group. A classical review on the earlier work on

organic conductors is by Jerome and Schulz [15] and the more recent developments have

been summarized by Jerome [23] and Williams et al. [24]. A pedagogical overview of both

experimental and theoretical aspects can be found in the Proceedings of the 1986 NATO-

ASI in Magog (Canada) [25] while the latest progress on organic materials is collected in

the Proceedings of the biannual Synthetic Metals conferences [16]. Some subjects do not

receive due coverage in this article: concerning the Bethe Ansatz, there are reviews by

Sutherland [26], Korepin et al. [27], and Izyumov and Skryabin [28], and there is also a

vast literature on conformal field theory [29]. Other problems of high current interest, and

intimately related to our subject, could not be included for restrictions in space and time:

spin chains, which can be related by a variety of methods to 1D interacting fermions;

all developments starting from the Calogero-Sutherland model; one-dimensional bosons;

persistent currents in mesoscopic rings, where interesting contributions originate from the

study of 1D fermions despite the 3D spherical Fermi surface in the real materials, and

many more. We hope that others take up the challenge to review these active areas.

This article is structured as follows. Chapter 2 will complement this brief introduction

in that it discusses the breakdown of the Fermi liquid on a more technical level and

identifies the relevant features of one-dimensionality. Specifically we show (i) how the

Peierls divergence produces an instability of the 1D Fermi gas in the presence of repulsive

interactions, (ii) how the breakdown of a quasi-particle picture can be seen in a second-

order perturbation calculation, and (iii) where Landau’s derivation of a transport equation

crashes in 1D.

Chapter 3 will present a detailed discussion of the Luttinger model from various angles.

In Section 3.1, we argue that a universal low-energy description of 1D Fermi liquids

can be based on this model. We define the Hamiltonian and discuss its symmetries

and conservation laws which are essential for all solutions. In Section 3.2.1, we give a

solution using a boson representation of the Hamiltonian, before constructing an explicit

operator identity between fermions and these bosons in Section 3.2.2. This representation

is fruitfully employed in Section 3.3 for a calculation of the Luttinger model correlation

functions. The manifestation of charge-spin separation in dynamical correlations is the

subject of Section 3.4. An alternative method of solution based on the equations of motion

of the Green functions, and on Ward identities, is presented in Section 3.5. Another

alternative for constructing a boson representation of the fermions, conformal field theory,

is introduced in Section 3.6 and shown to be fully equivalent to the operator approach of

the earlier sections.

The Luttinger model is based on very strong restrictions on the dispersion and inter-

action of the particles. In Chapter 4 we shall pass beyond these restrictions and show

that the Luttinger physics still is conserved in a low-energy subspace of more realistic

6

models. This is conjectured in Section 4.1, and then case studies are presented to its

support. With nonlinear band dispersion (Section 4.2), the fermion operators acquire

higher harmonics in kF . Large-momentum transfer scattering in (Section 4.3) lifts unre-

alistic degeneracies of Luttinger model correlation functions by logarithmic corrections.

The correlations of various lattice models are evaluated in Section 4.4. Electron-phonon

systems or dirty 1D metals can also have Luttinger liquid correlations, and we touch upon

these problems in Section 4.5. Section 4.6 shows that rich transport phenomena occur as

one goes away from the simple Luttinger model. Finally, in Section 4.7, we show that the

low-energy physics of the 1D Hubbard model is determined by low-energy excitations in

the charge-momentum- and spin-rapidity-distribution functions, and that in each sector,

one can therefore formulate a Fermi-liquid theory for its excitations.

Not all 1D systems are Luttinger liquids. In some cases, there are gaps in either the

charge or spin excitation spectra, and phase separation can occur (at least in models).

Chapter 5 discusses these cases. We expand especially on the Mott transition in Section

5.2 which has been studied in considerable detail during the past years.

In Chapter 6, we go beyond the framework of the Luttinger liquid outlined before.

We discuss multi-band models in Section 6.1. An important issue has been the crossover

from the 1D Luttinger liquid to higher-dimensional behaviour. We elaborate on this

problem in Section 6.2. Finally, we describe the modelling of edge excitations supporting

the transport in the quantum Hall effect in terms of a chiral Luttinger liquid in Section

6.3. While the general features are similar to the standard Luttinger liquid, the edge

excitations have irrational charges and constitute a new universality class, described by a

conformal field theory with central charge c 6= 1.

This review closes with a summary of experiments which provide (often controver-

sial) evidence for Luttinger liquid correlations in several classes of materials. We discuss

organic conductors and superconductors, inorganic charge density wave systems, and

semiconductors in the quantum Hall regime.

The general approach chosen here is to give some space to the discussion of the basic

methods used in this field in the last decade and to some selected examples. This nec-

essarily requires selection, often biased by the author’s prejudices, and many important

papers are discussed only briefly. It is hoped that the general discussion will give tools,

and that the overview on the current status give orientation to the reader to locate and

appreciate the original articles relevant to him. Although I have tried to incorporate a

maximum of the published literature available to me, space restrictions did not allow to

do so systematically. I apologize to all those whose contributions have not received due

coverage.

7

Chapter 2

Fermi liquid theory and its failure in

one dimension

2.1 The Fermi liquid

Macroscopic properties of ordinary (3D) metals can be described remarkably well by the

model of a Fermi gas although the interactions are not weak. Why is this possible? The

answer is provided by Landau’s theory of the Fermi liquid [1, 2].

The key observation is that macroscopic properties involve only excitations of the

system on energy scales (say temperatures) small compared to the Fermi energy. The state

of the system can be specified in terms of its ground state, i.e. its Fermi surface, and its

low-lying elementary excitations – a rarified gas of “quasi-particles”. These quasi-particles

evolve continuously out of the states of a free Fermi gas when interactions are switched

on adiabatically, and are in one-to-one correspondence with the bare particles (adiabatic

continuity). They possess the same quantum numbers as the original particles, but their

dynamical properties are renormalized by the interactions. This scenario emerges because

the phase space for scattering of particles is severly restricted by Fermi statistics: at low

temperatures, most particles are frozen inside the Fermi sea, and only a fraction T/TF ≪ 1

participate in the scattering processes. Apart those originating from the requirement of

stability there are, however, no restrictions on the magnitude of the effective interactions

between the quasi-particles, as measured by the Landau parameters. The restriction to

low-lying excitations implying low densities of excitations, and Fermi statistics are enough

to ensure Fermi liquid properties.

The ground state of a gas of free particles is fully described by its momentum distribu-

tion function n0(k). For the interacting system, it can be specified by the quasi-particle

distribution function which is the same as that of the bare particles in the free system.

Excitations are then determined by the deviations they produce in the momentum dis-

tribution with respect to the ground state, δn(k) = n(k) − n0(k). So long as there are

few excitations, δn(k) is small. The change in energy δE associated with quasi-particle

8

excitations can then be expanded in powers of δn(k)

δE =∑

k

[ε0(k) − µ] δn(k) +1

2

∑

k,k′

δn(k)f(k,k′)δn(k′) + . . . , (2.1)

where f(k,k′) is the quasi-particle interaction and µ is the chemical potential. Although

the single-particle term is of first order in δn(k) and the interaction term of second order,

they are in fact of equal importance and the second term cannot be neglected: the notion

of a quasi-particle making sense only in the neighbourhood of the Fermi surface, ε0(k)−µis small there and of the same sign as δn(k).

On a more formal level, the Green function of an electron is

G(k, ω) =1

ε0(k) − ω − Σ(k, ω), (2.2)

where ε0(k) is the bare dispersion and Σ(k, ω) is the self-energy containing all the many-

body effects. The poles of the Green functions give the single-particle excitation energies,

and the imaginary part of the self-energy provides the damping of these excitations.

Σ(k, ω) is, for fixed k, a smooth function of ω and continuous in k. This guarantees

solutions to the equation

ε0(k) − ω − Σ(k, ω) = 0 , (2.3)

determining the single particle excitation energies. One hopes that there is only a single

solution to this equation – but this need not be so. In fact, having a single solution – the

quasi-particle pole with finite residue [4]

zk =

(

1 − ∂ReΣ(k, ω)

∂ω

)−1

ω=ε(k)

≤ 1 (2.4)

– implies a normal Fermi liquid. We shall see below that the the breakdown of Fermi liquid

theory in 1D is signalled by the appearance of multiple solutions or vanishing of zk. The

quasi-particle residue zkFgives the magnitude of the jump of the momentum distribution

function of the bare particles at the Fermi surface [4]. Expanding the self-energy to second

order, the Green function close to the Fermi surface becomes

G(k, ω) = Ginc(k, ω) +zk

ω − v(|k| − kF ) + i u sign(|k| − kF )(|k| − kF )2. (2.5)

There is no damping of the quasi-particles at the Fermi surface. They will exist off the

Fermi surface only to the extent that their damping is sufficiently small (their lifetime

long enough) to make them behave like an eigenstate over a reasonably long time scale.

Damping of a quasi-particle with energy ω is provided by complex configurations of quasi-

particle–quasi-hole excitations. They also produce incoherent background ImGinc(ω) in

the spectral function which, interfering with the coherent part, gives ImG(ω) ∝ ω2 for

ω → 0 at finite k. Eq. (2.5) is to be compared to the 1D Green functions derived

in Chapter 3.3, and to that of the marginal Fermi liquid whose quasi-particle residue

vanishes as [13]

zk ∼ −1/ ln | ε(k) | for ε(k) → µ = 0 . (2.6)

9

The quasi-particle is the central concept in the theory of the Fermi liquid. From

the quasi-particle picture, Landau derived, in his first paper, a Boltzmann-like transport

equation for the Fermi liquid [1]. To this end, one assumes that spatially inhomogeneous

excitations in the system take place on a macroscopic scale only, so that the wavevector k

remains a good quantum number at least within a volume of macroscopic size. One can

then define a local distribution function δn(k, r). The time evolution of this distribution

is then given by

∂δn(k, r)

∂t+ vk · ∇δn(k, r) + δ(εk − µ)

∑

k′

f(k,k′)vk · ∇δn(k′, r) = I[n] , (2.7)

where I[n], the collision term, is a functional of n(k, r) and the velocity vk = ∇kε(k).

Since δn and δ(εk − µ) appear, it is clear that this equation applies only close to the

Fermi surface. Notice that the assumption of variation of n(k, r) over macroscopic length

scales implies coarse graining any underlying microscopic theory over length scales at

least of the order of the thermal de Broglie length ξ ∼ vF/πT . ξ measures the length

over which the quasi-particles loose their phase coherence. Moreover, due to the collision

term, (2.7) contains dissipation, produced by the elimination of degrees of freedom in the

coarse graining process.

Subsequently however, Landau was able to derive the same equation from the general

formalism of many-body theory without making reference to the quasi-particle picture [1],

and one could conceive generalizations of the Fermi liquid theory based on this equation.

For the one-dimensional Fermi liquid, however, the analogon of the Landau-Boltzmann

transport equation has not yet been derived, and the usual derivation fails in 1D. In the

remainder of this article, we shall base our notion of a Fermi liquid on the quasi-particle

picture.

2.2 Breakdown of Fermi liquid theory in one dimen-

sion

Adiabatic continuity is, a priori, a hypothesis which needs verification: while it works

for repulsive interactions in 3D, it cannot be justified for attractive interactions where a

transition to superconductivity takes place – but neither can it be justified for repulsive

interactions in 1D, the case of highest interest in the present article. Here, we discuss

where Fermi liquid theory breaks down in 1D. The first discussion is rather qualitative and

handwaving. A second one computes the perturbation corrections in the Green function

of a 1D Fermi gas due to some interactions and therefore probes quasi-particles. The

third part finally indicates where the derivation of Landau’s quasi-particle interactions

and transport equation breaks down and suggests that also the latter will have a new

shape in 1D.

On the microscopic level, the central problem in the theory of 1D interacting electrons

is the Peierls instability [5], Figure 2.1: 1D electrons spontaneously open a gap at the

Fermi surface when they are coupled adiabatically to phonons with wave vector 2kF . The

10

mechanism operates, however, also for electron-electron interactions. The particle-hole

susceptibility in Figure 2.1 diverges as ln[max(vF q, ω)] if momentum 2kF +q and frequency

ω are transferred through the bubble. Its origin is the nesting property of the 1D Fermi

surface: one piece of the Fermi surface can be matched identically onto the other by a

“translation” with Q = ±2kF . (In higher dimensions, in the generic case, a given 2kF only

matches two points – a Fermi surface part of measure zero.) Summing up a particle-hole

ladder, i.e. doing a mean-field theory, one would predict a (charge or spin) density wave

instability at some finite temperature for repulsive interactions – implying that there can

be no Fermi liquid in 1D. The finite transition temperature is, of course, unphysical and an

artefact of mean-field theory. It is removed by realizing that, since the Peierls channel is as

divergent as the Cooper pairing channel, both types of instabilities interfere and one has

to solve at least a “parquet” of diagrams [30]. The Peierls–Cooper interference conveys a

marked non-mean-field character to this problem: mean-field theories are constructed by

selecting one important series of diagrams. Here two of them interfere and compete! The

1D Fermi gas is inherently unstable towards any finite interaction, suggesting that it is

not a good point of departure for analyzing interacting electrons in 1D. (Notwithstanding

this statement, much progress in our understanding of 1D fermions is due perturbing the

1D Fermi gas by electron-electron interaction [18].) There is thus urgent need for new

low-energy phenomenology, similar in spirit to the Fermi liquid picture, but adapted to

the specific problems of 1D electrons.

The breakdown of Fermi liquid theory in 1D is also visible in a second order pertur-

bation calculation, as we will demonstrate now. We consider a simplified problem of 1D

electrons with a density-density interaction parameterized by a coupling constant g. We

calculate the self-energy Σrs(q, ω) in Eq. (2.2) in second order perturbation theory. The

relevant diagrams are shown in Figure 2.2. Anticipating on the next Chapters, we limit

ourselves to (forward) scattering processes transferring only small momentum q ≪ kF ,

and discuss the relevant processes separately in order to avoid obscuring interferences.

All arguments are robust, however.

We start with the process where all scattering partners are on the same side r = ± of

the Fermi surface, to be called g4 hereafter [the Hamiltonian is written out in Eq. (3.4)].

So long as g4 is independent of momentum transfer, Hartree and Fock terms will cancel

each other for scattering partners having the same spin. If they have opposite spin (g4⊥),

(b) and (d) are absent, and (a) only renormalizes the chemical potential. The self-energy

(c) can be calculated and injected into (2.2). The pole of the Green function should give

the energy for quasi-particle excitations, but here we obtain two solutions

ω =

(

vF± | g4⊥√8π

|)

(rk − kF ) !!! (2.8)

This violates the single-pole assumption at the origin of the Fermi liquid. Anticipating

Chapter 3 the meaning of the two poles is clear: charge-spin separation. The two poles

are not converged into a single pole by higher order terms, which generate more and more

poles around the two found in Eq. (2.8) and finally merge into a branch cut, giving this

model the specific spectral features discussed in detail in Section 3.4.

11

We now turn to forward scattering where both partners are on opposite sides of the

Fermi surface [labelled g2 hereafter, cf. Eq. (3.3)]. We drop spin indices since one has

only the Hartree diagrams (a) (renormalizing again the chemical potential) and (c) both

for g2‖ and g2⊥. Diagram (c) contains a counterpropagating electron-hole pair at ±kF .

This is precisely the Peierls bubble from Fig. 2.1 which gives a logarithmic dependence to

Σ(k, ω). The pole in the Green function (2.2) now has a residue zk ∼ −1/ ln |rk−kF | → 0

as k → kF . Any quasi-particle character of the excitation fades away as we approach the

Fermi surface! Again, higher order terms cannot restore the quasi-particle pole. They

produce higher powers of the logarithm which sum up to a power law. These ubiquitous

power laws have been mentioned in the Introduction and will be discussed in more detail

in Chapter 3.

A complete and rigorous microscopic justification of the Landau theory can be given

[2]. Here, we limit ourselves to a sketch of where these arguments break down in 1D. The

quasi-particle interaction f(k, k′) defined via Landau’s expansion of the total energy (2.1)

is related through

f(k, k′) = 2πizkzk′ limω→0

limq→0

Γ(k, EF , k′, EF ; q, ω) (2.9)

to the complete particle-hole interaction vertex Γ(k, E, k′, E ′; q, ω). Notice that no mo-

mentum transfer is involved in the quasi-particle interaction. The complete particle-hole

interaction Γ is related to the irreducible one I by the Bethe-Salpeter equation which we

only display graphically in Figure 2.3. Singularities in Γ are required for eventually desta-

bilizing quasi-particles (Γ determines the two-particle Green function which is coupled,

via the interaction, into the single-particle Green function). So long as I is nonsingular,

singular Γ can only arise from the internal Green functions in the right diagram in Figure

2.3. Physically, they represent that part of the effective interaction which is mediated

by propagating particles. There are, in fact, such singularities when the difference of

(four-)momenta on the internal lines tends to zero. Due to the particular limit involved

in Eq. (2.9), the quasi-particle interaction is not sensitive to these singularities and re-

mains regular. The singularities matter, however, in opposite (forward scattering) limit

ω = 0, q → 0 when momentum transfer is allowed. Then collective (zero sound) modes

can be excited. Their velocity, however, exceeds the Fermi velocity so that they do not

interfere with the quasi-particles.

Now consider one dimension. As we have seen in Figure 2.1 above there is a logarithmic

singularity in the (Peierls) particle-hole susceptibility at q = 2kF . It is clear from Figure

2.3 that the Peierls bubble gives an additional divergence in the Bethe-Salpeter equation

when the momentum of the internal Green functions differs by 2kF whereas the derivation

of Landau theory assumes this vertex to be finite at 2kF . Moreover, the Peierls divergence

is worse than that at q = 0 in that the internal momentum integrals sample the full

bandwidth; at small q, the pole structure of the singular part is such that one only

integrates over a slice of width q. This is why the singularity does not enter the quasi-

particle interaction. The two-particle Green function then carries the singularity in Γ into

the single-particle Green function where it will ruin the quasi-particle pole.

12

The quasi-particle interaction f(k, k′) in (2.9) does not involve momentum transfer

between the quasi-particles. In other words, the components of the interaction which

do transfer momentum are irrelevant in 3D. This is very different from 1D where, on

dimensional grounds, these interactions are marginal and cannot be neglected compared

to those which do not transfer momentum. This finally generates charge-spin separation.

We shall give a more detailed argument in the next chapter, at the end of Section 3.1.3,

after we have introduced the relevant Hamiltonian. A reduction of the interactions to an

effective quasi-particle interaction (2.9) cannot be operated in 1D.

Any search for an extension or a replacement of Fermi liquid theory in 1D must neces-

sarily incorporate in a consistent manner the Peierls divergence and momentum transfer

in the interaction process. This is what the Luttinger liquid approach, to be discussed

in the next chapter, does. A valid though less satisfactory alternative, starting from a

1D Fermi gas, is offered by either solving parquet equations or performing renormaliza-

tion group as “devices” to sum up consistently the offending divergences discussed here

[18, 30].

13

Chapter 3

The Luttinger model

3.1 Low-energy phenomenology in 1D – the Luttinger

model

3.1.1 Ground state and elementary excitations of 1D fermions

We have seen in the previous chapters that both the Peierls singularity and charge-spin

separation, both related to the small phase space in 1D, spoil a Fermi liquid description

of 1D correlated fermions and require new approaches. On the other hand, the rewarding

feature of 1D physics is that the particle-hole excitations acquire well-defined particle-

like dispersion in the long-wavelength limit q → 0, Figure 3.1. These collective density

fluctuations obey approximately bosonic commutation relations and can indeed be used

to construct the new low-energy phenomenology called for.

To describe the low-energy physics, we need to know the ground state and the ele-

mentary excitations. Consider a system with N0 electrons in a system of length L. In the

absence of external fields, the ground state of the free system is the Fermi sea |FS〉 with

kF = N0π/2L. In general, the ground state may be different, however. In a magnetic

field, the number of up- and down-spins, is different, kF↑ 6= kF↓, and in an electric field,

the number of right- and left-moving fermions is different, k(+)F 6= −k(−)

F , producing a net

magnetization and current, respectively. Varying the chemical potential changes all four

kF . With respect to the reference state given by kF , one can therefore introduce four

numbers Nr,s measuring the addition or removal of fermions, above or below the reference

kF , in the channel (r, s), where r labels the dispersion branch close to rkF and s the spin.

The total charge and spin as well as charge and spin currents with respect to the reference

state are obtained by linear combination.

What are the elementary excitations? For the free system, one could add a fermion

in a k-state with |k| > kF and create a quasi-particle. However, we have seen in the

preceding chapter that these quasi-particles are not stable against turning on interactions.

Next consider particle-hole excitations c†k+qck|FS〉, Fig. 3.1 (left). Firstly, notice that the

electron and hole created travel at the same group velocity and therefore form an almost

bound state which is certainly extremely susceptible to interactions, particularly in 1D.

14

Secondly, for small q where the dispersion is almost linear, there is a huge degeneracy

L|q|/2π of these excitations with energy ω(q). We can form “particles”, corresponding to

the linear dispersion branch ω(q) ∝ |q| for q → 0 in Fig. 3.1, by coherently superposing

particle-hole excitations with different k, Eq. (3.5) below. These fluctuations are also

present in the Fermi liquid but there, the low-energy spectral region (ω < vFkF , 0 <

q < 2kF ) is filled in. The presence of these finite-q low-energy states allows the decay of

these excitations into their constituent quasi-particles and therefore is responsible for a

kind of “chemical” equilibrium between quasi-particles and collective excitations. In 1D

this decay into quasi-particles is not possible and makes these charge- (spin-) fluctuations

stable elementary excitations of the system. They have bosonic commutation properties.

With respect to our reference state |FS〉, there are thus two types of elementary exci-

tations: (i) the charge and spin and their corresponding current excitations which change

the Fermi wavevectors k(r)F,s and thus the number of fermions in the system [3], and (ii)

the collective bosonic charge and spin-density fluctuations. There are no stable quasi-

particles, and the addition of a fermion generates both types of elementary excitations,

cf. Eq. (3.41) below.

These features are generic to 1D gapless quantum systems but are particularly promi-

nent in the exactly solvable Luttinger model. In the following, we describe and solve this

model before we turn, in the next chapter, to the reduction of microscopic lattice models

(e.g. Hubbard model) onto effective Luttinger Hamiltonians.

3.1.2 Tomonaga-Luttinger Hamiltonian

The Tomonaga-Luttinger model describes 1D right- and left-moving fermions through the

Hamiltonian [3], [7] -[9], [31]-[35]

H = H0 +H2 +H4 , (3.1)

H0 =∑

r,k,s

vF (rk − kF ) : c†rkscrks : , (3.2)

H2 =1

L

∑

p,s,s′

[

g2‖(p)δs,s′ + g2⊥(p)δs,−s′

]

ρ+,s(p)ρ−,s′(−p) , (3.3)

H4 =1

2L

∑

r,p,s,s′

[

g4‖(p)δs,s′ + g4⊥(p)δs,−s′

]

: ρr,s(p)ρr,s′(−p) : . (3.4)

crks describes fermions with momentum k and spin s on the two branches (r = ±) of the

dispersion varying linearly [εr(k) = vF (rk − kF )] about the two Fermi points ±kF .

ρr,s(p) =∑

k

: c†r,k+p,scr,k,s :=∑

k

(

c†r,k+p,scr,k,s − δq,0〈c†r,k,scr,k,s〉0)

(3.5)

is the density fluctuation operator (describing the “particles” introduced above), and

: . . . : denotes normal ordering, defined by the second equality. The Tomonaga and

Luttinger models are distinguished by different cutoff prescriptions on the dispersion. In

the Tomonaga model [8] there is a finite bandwidth cutoff k0, i.e. the allowed k-space

states for branch r are rkF −k0 < k < rkF +k0. This simulates the finite bandwidth of all

15

real physical systems but, unfortunately, only allows an asymptotically exact solution. In

the Luttinger model [7], on the contrary, the dispersion extents to infinity: −∞ < k <∞for both branches. In order to obtain physically meaningful results, all the negative energy

states have to be occupied. The presence of these unphysical states is not expected to

affect the low-energy physics of the model (|ω| ≪ EF , |q| ≪ kF ). (A thorough discussion

of various cutoff procedures is given by Solyom [18] and Apostol [36].) The normal ordering

convention in Eqs. (3.2) and (3.5) is necessary to avoid reference to the infinite quantity∑

k〈c†rkscrks〉, the total particle number, which is ill-defined. The coupling constants g2

and g4 measure the strength of forward scattering (momentum transfer |q| ≪ kF ) between

particles on different or on the same branch of the dispersion, respectively, Figure 3.2.

They may depend on the relative orientation of the spin of the scattering particles. The

interaction terms with p = 0 give the change in Hartree-Fock energy of the system upon

addition of particles, and those with finite p describe the scattering of the elementary

excitations.

An exact solution of the Luttinger model is possible [3, 9, 31, 34] if a cutoff Λ is

imposed on the momentum transfer of the interactions [3, 31]. The coupling “constants”

gi(p) therefore depend on the momentum transfer (below, we shall exhibit explicitly this

momentum dependence only where necessary).

3.1.3 Symmetries and conservation laws

The possibility for an exact solution of the Luttinger model can be traced back to severe

conservation laws. The Hamiltonian not only conserves the total charge and spin of the

system

[Nρ, H ] = 0 , [Nσ, H ] = 0 (3.6)

but is does so separately on each branch r

[Nr,ρ, H ] = 0 , [Nr,σ, H ] = 0 , or [Nr,s, H ] = 0 . (3.7)

Clearly, this implies conservation of the charge and spin currents

[Jρ, H ] = 0 , [Jσ, H ] = 0 , or [Js, H ] = 0 . (3.8)

Consequently, the Hamiltonian is invariant under the gauge transformations

Ψrs(x) → exp(iθr)Ψrs(x) (3.9)

for each branch separately. Expressed differently, the Luttinger model possesses, in addi-

tion to the usual gauge symmetry Ψrs(x) → exp(iθ)Ψrs(x), a chiral symmetry

Ψrs(x) → exp(irθ)Ψrs(x) . (3.10)

The physical origin of these conservation laws is the restriction of the interaction Hamil-

tonian H2 + H4 to small momentum transfer (forward) scattering: processes scattering

particles across the Fermi surface are excluded from the model.

16

For specific values of the interaction constants

g2,‖ = g2,⊥ and g4,‖ = g4,⊥ , (3.11)

the Hamiltonian is invariant under a spin-rotation

Ψrs(x) →∑

s′gss′Ψrs′(x) , (3.12)

where gss′ = (exp[iΩ ·σ])ss′ is a SU(2)-matrix. As will be seen below, correlation functions

are spin-rotation invariant also when only the left equation in (3.11) is fulfilled.

The linear dispersion and the normal ordering involved in the density operators (3.5)

makes the model charge-conjugation symmetric [Ψrs(x) → Ψ†rs(x)]. While a more com-

plete model need not be charge conjugation symmetric, linearizing the dispersion amounts

to a constant-density-of-states approximation – often employed also in higher-dimensional

systems. Finally, when g2,s,s′ = g4,s,s′ the Luttinger model can be considered as the small

momentum transfer limit of a physical Hamiltonian involving only density-density inter-

actions.

Conservation of total charge and spin applies to most models commonly studied. Their

conservation separately on each branch is, however, a specific property of the Luttinger

model and not shared by more realistic 1D models. There, it holds in a low-energy

subspace if interaction terms not commuting with the charge and spin currents are irrel-

evant. If they are relevant, the low-energy physics is characterized by different (possibly

reduced) symmetries and cannot be described by an effective Luttinger model. Two such

interaction processes are depicted in Figure 3.3. g1⊥ describes exchange scattering across

the Fermi surface and spoils spin current conservation but respects charge current con-

servation. g3⊥ is Umklapp scattering of two particles in the same direction across the

Fermi surface and destroys charge current conservation while conserving the spin current.

However, momentum conservation usually inactivates g3⊥, except for commensurate band

fillings. Other interaction processes violating both charge and spin current conservation

are possible, too.

Charge conjugation and spin rotation occur as separate symmetries because of the

interactions. The free Hamiltonian has a higher symmetry which, however, is broken

by the interaction terms. The g2-interaction does not commute with the kinetic energy

[H2, H0] 6= 0. It therefore can modify the ground state by exciting particle-hole pairs out

of the Fermi sea. On the other hand, g4 commutes [H4, H0] = 0. With this term alone

the Fermi sea remains the ground state. Its influence is limited to removing degeneracies

in the excitations, as can a magnetic field or a hopping matrix element between chains.

The corresponding interactions are present also in higher dimensions. Still, it seems

that they play no role there. The reason is that these interactions are marginal or scale

invariant in 1D, in a renormalization group sense, while they are irrelevant in D > 1

and drop out of the problem. Marginality means that the coupling constant does not

change under a change in the length (or energy) scale while relevance or irrelevance

imply an increase resp. decrease of the coupling constant as the length (energy) scale is

increased (decreased). The marginality of g2 and g4 can be seen by simple power counting.

17

Taking the length scale to have canonical dimension [L] = 1, the Hamiltonian has [H ] =

−1, the fermion operator has [Ψr(x)] = −1/2 and the density operator [ρr(x)] = −1.

Consequently [g2] = [g4] = 0 i.e. g2 and g4 do not change with scale. The dimension of

Ψr(x) can be changed by the presence of marginal operators of g2-type but not by those of

g4-type. The dimension of ρr(x) is not changed by marginal interactions. Notice that the

coupling constants gi transfer momentum in the scattering process, and their marginality

implies that this momentum transfer cannot be neglected on any length (energy) scale.

In contrast, the momentum transfer of interactions in 3D can be neglected because the

interaction is irrelevant (the explicit prefactor L−3 in Hint gives it a dimension −2).

To see the consequences of this marginality, and in particular of g4, inject a particle

into the second empty plane wave state above the Fermi surface |ϕ1〉 = c†kF +4π/L,s|FS〉.Where can it be transferred by H4 which conserves the energy? The only allowed process

relaxes it into the first empty state above the Fermi surface and excites the last particle

from the Fermi sea to the same empty state: |ϕ2〉 = H4|ϕ1〉 = c†kF +2π/L,−sckF ,−sc†kF +2π/L,s

|FS〉. Now, within this two-state subsystem |ϕ1〉, |ϕ2〉, the Hamiltonian reduces to the

matrix

H =

(

4vFπ/L 2g4⊥/L

2g4⊥/L 4vFπ/L

)

. (3.13)

The diagonal terms come from the kinetic energy, and the 1/L-factor comes in from

the quantization of the k-vectors, and the off-diagonal interaction terms are proportional

to 1/L because of the explicit normalization factor in the Hamiltonian H4. Interaction

and kinetic energy both scale with 1/L and are of equal importance! Carrying through

the same argument in 3D, the kinetic terms will continue to scale with 1/L while the

interaction terms scale with 1/L3 and therefore can safely be neglected at finite momentum

transfer [37]. The new eigenvalues are (4π/L)(vF ± g4⊥/2π) suggesting that the particles

have split into two objects propagating at two different renormalized velocities vρ,σ =

vF ± g4⊥/2π – charge-spin separation.

The argument continues to hold as one injects the particles at higher momenta 2nπ/L

where H4 couples it to n − 1 other states of lower energy. It also carries over to the g2-

interaction. Due to the non-conservation of energy, however, an infinite number of states

are coupled to the particle at any momentum. Momentum transfer scattering, therefore,

can never be neglected in 1D, and a reduction to a quasi-particle interaction (2.9) cannot

be justified in any circumstances. The marginality of forward scattering with finite mo-

mentum transfer in 1D is at the origin both of the anomalous correlation exponents and

charge-spin separation which we shall discuss in more detail in the subsequent sections.

It is the important difference to higher-dimensional systems.

3.2 Boson solution of the Luttinger model

A variety of solutions for the Luttinger model have been produced in the past. Histori-

cally, the first solution involved a boson representation of the Hamiltonian [9] and will be

reviewed first. This solution was “completed” by the construction of a boson representa-

18

tion for the fermion operators [32, 33] which has been made rigorous by Haldane [3] and

Heidenreich et al. [31]. It emphasizes the differences between Fermi liquids in one and in

higher dimensions. Methods developed in Fermi liquid theory, more strongly emphasizing

similarities between 1D and 3D Fermi liquids, have also been used to solve the Luttinger

model [34, 35] and are reviewed in Section 3.5.

3.2.1 Diagonalization of Hamiltonian

The Tomonaga-Luttinger model (3.1), (although using Luttinger’s version with infinite

bands and a momentum transfer cutoff in the interactions throughout, we shall often

attach Tomonaga’s name to the model, too) describes excitations with respect to a ground

state described by the Fermi wave vector kF = (π/2)(N0/L) where N0 is the number of

physical electrons in a chain of length L. Due to the unphysical negative energy states,

N0 6= ∑

rks〈c†rkscrks〉0; the left-hand side of this equation is finite, the right-hand side is

infinite. The infinitely extended dispersion introduces many more subtleties into the model

which are crucial to obtain a correct solution. There are three important steps in achieving

a complete solution of this model: (i) the realization that due to the infinite dispersion,

the ρr,s(p) obey exact boson commutation relations [9]; (ii) a representation of the free

Hamiltonian (3.2) as a bilinear in these boson operators [9]; (iii) the explicit construction

of a boson representation for the fermion operators Ψrs(x) = (1/√L)∑

k crks exp(ikx).

“Normally” (the precise meaning of this will become apparent below) density operators

commute [ρs(p1), ρs(p2)] = 0 because their Fourier transforms ρs(x) = Ψ†s(x)Ψs(x) are

local objects. This is no longer true for Luttinger’s density operators because of the

fermion doubling

Ψs(x) → Ψr,s(x) ; cks =∑

r=±Θ(rk)crks . (3.14)

Θ(x) is the step function. There is now a nonlocal relation between the physical fermions

Ψs(x) and the right- and left-moving Ψr,s(x)

Ψ†s(x) =

1

2πi

∑

r

∫ L/2

−L/2dy K(y) Ψ†

r,s(x+ y) with K(y) =π

Lcot

(

πy

L

)

, (3.15)

and the density operators no longer commute.

The commutator of the density operators is

[ρr,s(p), ρr′,s′(−p′)] = δr,r′δs,s′∑

k

(

c†r,k+p,scr,k+p′,s − c†r,k+p−p′,scr,k,s

)

. (3.16)

In a finite band containing both ±kF (ck,s without the subscript r), it is permissible to

change the summation variable k → k+p′ in the second term which makes the commutator

vanish. For the Tomonaga model (finite bands around ±kF ), for p 6= p′ one has an

operator acting on the states near the band edges rkF ± k0, and the approximate bosonic

commutators of the Tomonaga model are obtained by neglecting these band edge terms.

For p = p′ one measures the difference in the number of occupied states at k and k+p, i.e.

19

p – making the commutator a finite number. For infinite bands (Luttinger model), one

manipulates the (ill-defined) difference of two infinite quantities, and one must introduce

normal ordered operators, Eq. (3.5), into the right hand side of Eq. (3.16). The problem

of the band edge terms is then rigorously absent since there is no band edge left, and for

p = p′ the argument for the Tomonaga model carries over:

[ρr,s(p), ρr′,s′(−p′)] = δr,r′δs,s′∑

k

: c†r,k+p,scr,k+p′,s − c†r,k+p−p′,scr,k,s :

+ δr,r′δs,s′δp,p′∑

k

[〈nr,k+p,s〉0 − 〈nrks〉0]

= −δr,r′δs,s′δp,p′rpL

2π. (3.17)

One can safely change the summation variable in the first line of (3.17) because the

operators are normal-ordered; the two terms add up to zero, leaving the contribution of

the second line. In the Tomonaga model with finite bands for right- and left-movers, the

boson algebra obtains approximately (for wave vectors far from the band edges) because

one works with truncated density operators. The algebra (3.17) is known as the U(1)

Kac-Moody algebra in field theory, and the nonvanishing of the commutator (3.17) due

to the infinite number of negative energy states (Luttinger model) or the cutoff procedure

(Tomonaga model) is called an “anomaly”.

Acting on the ground state of the free Hamiltonian H0, the ρr,s(p) behave either as

creation or annihilation operators, depending on sign(p)

ρ+,s(−p)|0〉 = ρ−,s(p)|0〉 = 0 for p > 0 . (3.18)

To complete the algebra, it is necessary to construct a ladder operator Urs which changes

the fermion number without affecting the bosonic excitations. This operator is necessary

again because of the infinite dispersion: since there are no upper and lower limits to the

number of particles, the number operator cannot be expressed in terms of raising and

lowering operators. Haldane and Heidenreich et al. have given such a construction in

terms of the bosons ρr,s(p) and the fermions Ψrs(x) [3, 31], cf. below.

There are several ways to see that the free fermion Hamiltonian H0, Eq. (3.2), is

equivalent to an operator bilinear in the bosons ρrs(p). The simplest one [9] is to examine

the commutator

[H0, ρr,s(p)] = vF r p ρr,s(p) (3.19)

which is obviously compatible with

H0 =πvF

L

∑

r,p 6=0,s

: ρr,s(p)ρr,s(−p) : + const. (3.20)

The equivalence of the Hamiltonians (3.2) and (3.20) is known as Kronig’s identity [38],

and is valid at fixed particle number. If particles are added to the system , the “+const.”

becomes important, however, because one must add their kinetic energy to the Hamilto-

nian. We put them into the lowest available states above the Fermi sea (other states can

20

be reached by acting with the boson operators). The complete Hamiltonian then takes

the form

H0 =πvs

L

∑

r,p 6=0,s

: ρr,s(p)ρr,s(−p) : (3.21)

+π

2L

∑

s

[

vN(N+,s +N−,s)2 + vJ(N+,s −N−,s)

2]

,

(−1)Js = −(−1)N

s , (vs = vN = vJ = vF ) ,

where the Nr,s ≡ ρr,s(p = 0), Eq. (3.5), are taken relative to their (infinite) ground state

value and therefore measure excitations with respect to a given ground state charge. The

symmetric combination Ns =∑

r Nr,s measures charge and the antisymmetric combination

Js =∑

r rNr,s measures current excitations, both carrying spin s. Total charge and spin,

as well as charge and spin currents, are obtained by the appropriate sums over s. These

quantities specify the number and the left-right asymmetry of the fermions added to the

reference state (Ns = N0/2, Js = 0). The equality of the three velocities in (3.21) to

the bare one only holds for the free model and is violated by interactions (the Hartree-

Fock energy of the added particles appears as the q = 0 components of the interaction

Hamiltonian). Including the charge and current excitations, (3.2) and (3.21) possess the

same spectrum, by construction. That the multiplicities of the levels also are equal can

be proved by calculating the grand partition function both in the fermion (3.2) and in the

boson (3.21) representation. Thus the fermionic and bosonic Hilbert spaces are identical.

Why are such two different representations of the same Hamiltonian possible? (i)

Reconsider the elementary particle–hole excitations in Figure 3.1. They acquire a well-

defined particle-like character in 1D as q → 0. In the Luttinger model the low-q branch

of their dispersion is strictly linear in q. Decay of these excitations in the constituent

particles and holes is forbidden on account of 1D kinematics – it would involve states

in the void low-frequency part of the spectrum. There should thus be a representation

of the Hamiltonian, which describes excitations, in terms of these particles alternative

to the original fermionic one. Moreover, the absence of dispersion implies that these

excitations do not interact: one excitation with momentum q + q′ has the same energy

as two excitations with momenta q and q′. Certainly, these collective modes also exist

in higher dimensions, but so does the electron-hole continuum which permits their decay

into quasi-particles and quasi-holes. (ii) An intimately related observation is that the

particle and the hole created in such an excitation, travel at the same group velocity and

therefore form an almost bound state which surely is extremely susceptible to dramatic

modification by interactions where, in any case, momentum transfer cannot be neglected.

(iii) All states with even (odd) fermion charge N − N0 have excitation energies that are

even (odd) multiples of πvF/L. In other words, the spectrum effectively becomes that of

a harmonic oscillator. This fact again suggests that an equivalent boson representation

of H0 should be possible. (iv) The Kac-Moody algebra (3.17) can be obtained either by

representing ρrs(p) as a fermion bilinear (3.5) or as the gradient of true bosonic field Φr,s(x)

[Eq. (3.40) below]. Since the algebra is unique, the two representations must be equivalent.

While for the noninteracting problem, the two representations are true alternatives, the

21

success of bosonization is related to the fact that the bosonic one becomes more “natural”

once interactions are introduced.

Now the Luttinger Hamiltonian can be diagonalized by a Bogoliubov transformation

[3, 9, 31]. First transform to charge and spin variables

ρr(p) =1√2

[ρr,↑(p) + ρr,↓(p)] , Nr,ρ =1√2

[Nr,↑ +Nr,↓] ,

σr(p) =1√2

[ρr,↑(p) − ρr,↓(p)] , Nr,σ =1√2

[Nr,↑ −Nr,↓] . (3.22)

We only include the z-component of the spin density operator working within abelian

bosonization. At this point, the SU(2)-spin transformation properties of the fermions

(3.12) has been broken down to U(1) [just like the gauge transformation (3.9) for the

charges], and likewise for the symmetry of the Hamiltonian, even if (3.11) is satisfied.

One can keep the spin densities transforming explicitly according to SU(2)

Sr(x) =∑

s,s′

1

2Ψ†

rs(x)σss′Ψrs′(x) (3.23)

and represent the Hamiltonian in terms of the U(1)-ρr- and SU(2)-Sr-fields. In this way,

one can keep SU(2)-invariance manifest at every stage of the calculation. The price to be

paid is, however, a significantly more complicated boson respresentation which will not

be reviewed here [20, 39].

The interactions transform as

giρ =1

2

(

gi‖ + gi⊥)

, giσ =1

2

(

gi‖ − gi⊥)

. (3.24)

The Hamiltonian then becomes (ν = ρ, σ henceforth)

H0 =πvF

L

∑

νrp 6=0

: νr(p)νr(−p) : (3.25)

+π

2L

[

vNν(N+ν +N−ν)2 + vJν(N+ν −N−ν)2]

(vNν = vJν = vF ) ,

H2 =2

L

∑

νp

g2ν(p)ν+(p)ν−(−p) , (3.26)

H4 =1

L

∑

νrp

g4ν(p) : νr(p)νr(−p) : . (3.27)

We diagonalize by the canonical transformation

H = eiSνHe−iSν , νr(p) = eiSννr(p)e−iSν

Sν =2πi

L

∑

p>0

ξν(p)

p[ν+(p)ν−(−p) − ν−(p)ν+(−p)] . (3.28)

The νr’s explicitly transform as

νr(p) = vr(p) cosh[ξν(p)] + ν−r(p) sinh[ξν(p)] , (3.29)

22

and H is diagonal under the condition

Kν(p) ≡ e2ξν(p) =

√

√

√

√

πvF + g4ν(p) − g2ν(p)

πvF + g4ν(p) + g2ν(p). (3.30)

For repulsive interactions, Kν < 1 while for attraction Kν > 1. The diagonal form is then

H =π

L

∑

rνp 6=0

vν(p) : νr(p)νr(−p) : (3.31)

+π

2L

[

vNν(N+ν +N−ν)2 + vJν(N+ν −N−ν)2]

,

with vNνvJν = v2ν i.e. vNν = vν/Kν and vJν = vνKν . (3.32)

(The Nrν-operators are not changed by the canonical transformation.) The renormalized

charge and spin fluctuation velocity is

vν(p) =

√

√

√

√

[

vF +g4ν(p)

π

]2

−[

g2ν(p)

π

]2

, (3.33)

and therefore

vNν = vF + g4ν + g2ν , vJν = vF + g4ν − g2ν , (3.34)

and the limit p→ 0 is implied whenever p is not exhibited explicitly. Due to the momen-

tum transfer cutoff Λ, we have asymptotically

Kν(p) →

Kν for p≪ Λ

1 for p≫ Λvν(p) →

vν for p≪ Λ

vF for p≫ Λ. (3.35)

Eqs. (3.31) and (3.32) are the central constitutive relations for the Luttinger model

and the Luttinger liquid hypothesis discussed in the next chapter will postulate that these

relations continue to hold in a low-energy subspace of all solvable gapless 1D models. The

quantity Kν(p → 0), Eq. (3.30), is the essential renormalized coupling constant for each

degree of freedom, and physically plays the role of a stiffness constant. Kν governs the

power-law decay of most correlation functions. The two parameters vν and Kν completely

describe the low-energy physics of each degree of freedom ν of the model. That there are

just two such parameters is not surprising: the Hamiltonian has only two parameters g2ν

and g4ν , and we just get back what we have put in. Important are the following facts:

(i) the three different velocities in the problem are all renormalized by the interactions,

Eq. (3.32), and describe different physical processes. vν , the renormalized Fermi (or

“sound”) velocity governs the bosonic excitations; vNν is related to the fermionic charge

excitations, i.e., for ν = ρ measures the shift in chemical potential upon varying the

Fermi wave vector δµ = vNρδkF and, for ν = σ the relation of the magnetic field to

the magnetization M = vNσ(kF↑ − kF↓). vJν finally measures the energy necessary to

create persistent charge or spin currents on the periodic chain. (ii) All three velocities are

properties of the spectrum of the model. Spectra can, however, be calculated either exactly

by Bethe Ansatz (e.g. Hubbard model) or to high accuracy with numerical methods, and

23

the velocities can then be determined. (iii) The three velocities determine the renormalized

coupling constant Kν which in turn determines all correlation functions of the Luttinger

model. It is now obvious how Eq. (3.32) turns the Luttinger model into a very useful

device for accessing the correlation functions of all 1D gapless models.

One prominent property of the Luttinger model – charge-spin separation – is manifest

here: charge and spin fluctuations propagate with different velocities and will therefore

separate in time. In realistic models, charge-spin separation will be dynamically generated

close to their Fermi surface. In the Luttinger model describing just this subspace, it has

become a manifest property of the model.

Collective charge density and spin density fluctuations propagating with different ve-

locities do also occur in higher dimensional models, and in particular in the Fermi liquid.

This is not special to 1D. Dramatic consequences in 1D arise, however, from the lack

of robustness of hypothetical quasi-particles with respect to these elementary excitations

separating in time. Quasi-particles do not exist in 1D systems with charge-spin separa-

tion. This may again be traced back to the lack of a continuum of low-energy excitations

for 0 ≤ q ≤ 2kF , (Figure 3.1): in 1D there is no way how these collective modes can decay

into the hypothetical constituent quasi-particles (holes) which therefore never reappear

once interactions have been introduced. The absence of quasi-particles is most directly

seen in the single-particle spectral function which cannot be written in a form similar to

Eq. (2.5). Detailed results can be found in Section 3.4.

Labelling the charge-localization (Mott-Hubbard) transitions generated by strong Cou-

lomb interactions as “charge-spin separation” is somewhat misleading. It happens in

higher dimensions, too. At issue are the excitations out of this state, and whether there

are quasi-particles at low energies. Of course, there may be borderline cases, where the

quasi-particle residue in (2.5) is small but finite, and most of the spectral weight resides

in the collective modes.

Charge-spin separation is also visible in the many-particle correlation functions. This

is trivial, and also happens in higher dimension, for the small-q parts of density and

spin density correlation functions. The novel feature of the correlation functions in 1D

is the appearance of two separate singularities close to 2kF (and, partly, higher multiples

thereof) where a single one is expected in the absence of charge-spin separation. This will

also be discussed in Section 3.4. Before, we need to find a practical representation of the

fermion operator in terms of the bosons diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in order to be able

to calculate correlation functions.

3.2.2 Bosonization

A completely satisfactory boson solution of the Luttinger model also requires an explicit

representation of the fermion operators Ψrs(x) in terms of the bosons ρrs(p). Then any

correlation function can be given an equivalent boson representation and, the diagonal

Hamiltonian being a simple boson bilinear, the calculation of any of these correlation

functions becomes almost trivial, reducing to Gaussian averages.

Pioneering work in this direction was performed by Luther and Peschel [32] and Mattis

24

[33]. They proposed a bosonization formula which allowed an asymptotic calculation of

correlation functions but was certainly not an operator identity transforming between

fermions and bosons. The cutoff procedures and the interpretation of these cutoffs were

ambiguous [36]. Field theorists proposed similar constructions at the same time [40].

A precise formulation of such an operator identity was given independently by Haldane

[3] and Heidenreich et al. [31], and involves the construction of the (unitary) ladder

operator Ur,s. This operator increases by unity the number of fermions with spin s on

branch r and must commute with the boson operators with finite momentum. It is

sufficient for that purpose to consider states |Nr,s〉 where all states below a certain wave

vector are filled and above empty:

Ur,s|Nr,s Nr,s〉 = |Nr,s + 1 Nr,s〉 , [ρr,s(p 6= 0), Ur′,s′] = 0 (3.36)

in evident notation. A natural guess is to put the new fermion into the first free level

above the reference state, occupied up to | kF + 2πNr,s/L |,

Ur,s =1√L

∑

k

c†rks δ

(

rk −[

kF +(2Nr,s + 1)π

L

])

(3.37)

=1√L

∫ L

0dx؆

r,s(x) exp

(

ir

[

kF +(2Nr,s + 1)π

L

]

x

)

.

Its commutator with the bosons does, however, not vanish

[ρr,s(p), Ur′,s′] =δr,r′δs,s′√

L

∫ L

0dx eipx Ψr,s(x) exp

(

ir

[

kF +(2Nr,s + 1)π

L

]

x

)

. (3.38)

The idea now is to introduce, into Eq. (3.37), a bosonic field φr,s(x) whose commutators

with ρr,s(p) compensate the unwanted commutator from Ψr,s. One then has

Ur,s =1√L

∫ L

0dxeirkF xe−iφ†

r,s(x) Ψ†r,s(x) e−iφr,s(x) (3.39)

with

φr,s(x) = −πrxLNr,s + lim

α→0

2πi

L

∑

p 6=0

e−α|p|/2−ipx

| p | Θ(rp)ρr,s(−p)

(3.40)

which is the desired operator. This expression can be inverted for Ψr,s(x), now given in

terms of bosons and the ladder operator, and compactified into

Ψrs(x) = limα→0

eir(kF−π/L)x

√2πα

U †rs exp

(

−i√2

[rΦρ(x) − Θρ(x) + s rΦσ(x) − Θσ(x)]

)

.

(3.41)

The two phase fields are

Φν(x) = −iπL

∑

p 6=0

e−α|p|/2−ipx

p[ν+(p) + ν−(p)] − (N+,ν +N−ν)

πx

L, (3.42)

and

Θν(x) =iπ

L

∑

p 6=0

e−α|p|/2−ipx

p[ν+(p) − ν−(p)] + (N+,ν −N−ν)

πx

L(3.43)

25

and are constructed from the φr,s and φ†r,s plus commutator terms. The charge density

operator is related to Φρ by

ρ(x) =√

2 [ρ+(x) + ρ−(x)] = −√

2

π

∂Φρ(x)

∂x, (3.44)

where the factor√

2 comes from (3.22), and there is an analogous expression for the spin

density. Θν(x) is related to the momentum canonically conjugate to Φν(x)

Πν(x) =1

L

∑

p 6=0

e−α|p|/2−ipx [ν+(p) − ν−(p)] + (N+,ν −N−,ν)π

L(3.45)

by

Θν(x) = π∫ x

−∞dz Πν(z) (3.46)

and the commutation relations are

[Φν(x),Πν′(x′)] = iδν,ν′δ(x− x′) (3.47)

[Φν(x),Θν′(x′)] = iπ

2δν,ν′ sign(x′ − x) . (3.48)

We can rewrite the Hamiltonian in terms of these phase fields as

H =1

2π

∑

ν

∫

dx

vJν π2Π2

ν(x) + vNν

(

∂Φν(x)

∂x

)2

, (3.49)

making obvious the equivalence to the Gaussian model of statistical mechanics. Under

the Bogoliubov transformation (3.28), the phase fields transform as

Φν → Φν

√

Kν and Θν → Θν/√

Kν (3.50)

if we neglect the momentum dependence of the interactions g(p) so that the Kν can be

taken outside the summations in (3.42) and (3.43). These expressions can now be em-

ployed for calculating arbitrary correlation functions. Examples are given in the following.

There is also a more physical way of arriving at the general boson structure of the

fermion operators [41, 42]. Define a boson field Φr,s(x) by ∂Φr,s(x)/∂x = −πρr,s(x) where

ρ describes density fluctuations. Introducing a particle at site x creates a kink of amplitude

π in the field Φr,s, i.e. the phases of all other particles have to shift to accommodate the

new particle. This field can be considered as a dynamical implementation of the Fermi

surface phase shifts appearing in Anderson’s arguments in favour of a Luttinger liquid

in 2D [11]. Since displacement operators are exponentials of momentum operators, one

could guess Ψr,s(x) ∼ exp[iπ∫ x−∞ dzΠr,s(z)] where Πr,s(z) is the momentum canonically

conjugate to Φr,s(x). This operator commutes, however, with itself. The required change

of sign at x = x′ is achieved by multiplying with exp[±iΦr,s(x)] which yields

Ψr,s(x) ≈ limα→0

1

2παexp

[

irkFx− irΦr,s(x) + iπ∫ x

−∞dzΠr,s(z)

]

. (3.51)

This is essentially the Luther–Peschel–Mattis formula [32, 33] which contains all the im-

portant bosonic terms for the calculation of physical properties but does not have the

status of an operator identity in the full Hilbert space of the Luttinger model.

26

3.2.2.1 Spinless fermions

At various stages of this article, we will need spinless fermions, either because of their

physical relevance as elementary charge excitations (holons) in the Hubbard and related

models, or just for simplification. Here, we compile the most important formulae from

the preceding paragraphs for spinless fermions.

The Hamiltonian is obtained by dropping the spin label and summations in (3.2) –

(3.4), i.e.

H =πvF

L

∑

rp

: ρr(p)ρr(−p) : +πvF

2L

(

N2 + J2)

(3.52)

+1

L

∑

p

(

g2(p)ρ+(p)ρ−(p) +g4(p)

2

∑

r

: ρr(p)ρr(−p) :

)

(3.53)

with N, J = N+ ±N−. The Hamiltonian is diagonalized as

H =∑

r

πv(p)

L: ρr(p)ρr(−p) : +

π

2L(vNN

2 + vJJ2) + const. (3.54)

with the velocities

v(p) =

√

√

√

√

[

vF +g4(p)

2π

]2

−[

g2(p)

2π

]2

, vN = vF +g4(0) + g2(0)

2π, vJ = vF +

g4(0) − g2(0)

2π,

(3.55)

and the stiffness “constant”

K(p) =

√

√

√

√

2πvF + g4(p) − g2(p)

2πvF + g4(p) + g2(p). (3.56)

Finally, the bosonization identity for spinless fermions is

Ψr(x) = limα→0

eir(kF−π/L)x

√2πα

U †r exp (−i [rΦ(x) − Θ(x)]) . (3.57)

The fields Φ(x) and Θ(x) are given by the expressions (3.42) and (3.43) for the charges,

and the operators ρr(p) now refer to spinless fermions. With these fields, the Hamiltonian

the has the following phase representation

H =1

2π

∫

dx

vJπ2Π2(x) + vN

(

∂Φ(x)

∂x

)2

. (3.58)

3.3 Physical Properties of the Luttinger Model – Ther-

modynamics and Correlation Functions

The machinery set up in the preceding section is extremely useful in calculating correlation

functions. A remarkable feature of the Luttinger model is that all correlation functions can

be calculated exactly. With the boson representation of an operator, all the expectation

27

values reduce to Gaussian averages, as we shall show on some examples here. The linear

response of an operator B in a system described by a Hamiltonian H0, coupled to an

external field a(x, t) by the operators A(x), i.e. H = H0 +∫

dx a(x, t) A(x) is related,

through the Kubo formulae, to correlation functions of the system in the absence of the

external field (in the interaction picture and assuming translational invariance)

〈B(x, t)〉 = 〈B(a=0)(x, t)〉 +∫ ∞

−∞χBA(x− x′, t− t′)a(x′, t′)dx′dt′ ,

χBA(x, t) = −iΘ(t)〈[B(x, t), A(0, 0)]〉a=0 . (3.59)

χ is called susceptibility, response function, retarded correlation function, etc. There

are many closely related functions and below, we shall denote all of them as RBA or, if

symmetric, simply as RA, with some exception for cases of special relevance. Within linear

response theory, the Luttinger model can make predictions for all possible measurements.

3.3.1 Thermodynamics and transport

The Luttinger model has a specific heat linear in temperature

C(T ) = γT ,γ

γ0=

1

2

(

vF

vρ+vF

vσ

)

. (3.60)

The linearity is both characteristic of the underlying fermions (linear specific heat in

any dimension) as well as of the bosonic excitations (phonons in 1D also have a linear

specific heat). γ0 is the coefficient of free electrons which can be calculated from both

representations as

γ0 =π2k2

B

3N(EF ) =

2πk2B

3vF

, (3.61)

the density of states of the free Luttinger model being a constant N(E) = 2/πvF including

spin and both branches. The spin susceptibility and compressibility are

1

χ=

1

L

∂2E0(σ)

∂σ2,

1

κ=

1

L

∂2E0(n)

∂n2, (3.62)

where E0 is the ground state energy as a function of the particle (spin) density n (σ).

Throughout this article, we denote the average particle density (band filling factor) by

n and the density fluctuations by ρ(x). The susceptibilities are renormalized by the

interactions

χ =2Kσ

πvσ=

2

πvNσand κ =

2Kρ

πvρ=

2

πvNρ. (3.63)

They are related to the renormalized velocities for the charge (spin) excitations defined

in Eq. (3.34). This is expected, of course, because vNν measures the change in energy

upon changing the number of electrons in the system, cf. (3.31). As we shall see below,

spin-rotation invariance requires Kσ = 1.

The electrical conductivity is determined from the current-current correlations through

the Kubo formula

σ(ω) =i

ω

[

D

π+RR

j (ω)]

(3.64)

28

where the first term is the diamagnetic part and the (second) paramagnetic term is given

in terms of the retarded current-current correlation function

RRj (ω) = − i

L

∫ L

0dx∫ ∞

0dt〈[j(x, t), j(0, 0)]〉eiωt . (3.65)

The Drude weight D in fact is a susceptibility and is related to the derivative of the

ground state energy with respect to an applied flux Φ [43]

D =π

2L

∂2E0(Φ)

∂Φ2

∣

∣

∣

∣

∣

Φ=0

= 2vJρ (3.66)

A flux creates a “persistent” current in a Luttinger ring, and the appearance of vJρ here

should not surprise from (3.31) again. 2vJρ = 2vρKρ plays the role of the plasma frequency

in 1D [44].

One has to be careful in the definition of the current operators. Naively, one has

j(x) =√

2vF [ρ+(x) − ρ−(x)] =√

2vF Πρ(x). A more careful evaluation via the continuity

equation ∂tρ(xt) + ∂xj(xt) = 0 gives, however,

j(xt) =

√2

π

∂

∂tΦρ(xt) =

√2vρKρΠρ(xt) =

√2vJρΠρ(xt) . (3.67)

The difference is due to the fact that, in the Luttinger model, g2 may be different from

g4 and the density does not necessarily commute with the interaction Hamiltonian, as it

does in a well-defined lattice model. Notice, however, that vρKρ = vJρ; if the Luttinger

model is derived from a well-defined lattice model with density-density interactions only,

g2ν = g4ν is required and, using Eq. (3.34), one obtains vJρ = vF , i.e. the current

operators are not renormalized by interactions. This applies to galilean invariant models

in general where, in the limit q → 0, the current becomes proportional to momentum

which is conserved by the interactions [45]. Consequently, as can be shown by two partial

integrations on Eq. (3.65) producing

σ(ω) = − limq→0

Re (iω)−3∫ ∞

0dteiωt〈[ [H, j(qt)] , [H, j(q, 0)] ]〉 , (3.68)

one has RRJ (ω) ≡ 0 [45], so that the conductivity reduces to a pure Drude peak

σ(ω) = 2vJρδ(ω) = 2vF δ(ω) (3.69)

with an interaction-independent strength. This relation has been derived by a number of

people [44, 46, 47, 48].

There are a few most remarkable facts about these unspectacular formulae. (i) The

finiteness of the susceptibilities characterizes the system as a “normal metal”. It is highly

nontrivial in view of the ubiquitous divergences we shall encounter in the following sec-

tions. The physical origin lies in the strong conservation laws of the 1D phase space in the

absence of backscattering [46]. (ii) These quantities can be calculated both in a fermion

representation where one considers the charge excitations Nν and uses (3.62), and from

the q → 0 limit of bosonic correlation functions which we shall compute in Section 3.5.

29

The result is the same. The reason will be given below [47]. (iii) The boson representation

gives the susceptibilities in absolute magnitude for lattice models provided parameters are

identified correctly [47]. One can invert the procedure and use these relations to identify

the parameters of a low-energy boson theory for lattice models from (3.62) [10, 48, 49].

(iv) They can be obtained from the energy alone which can be calculated either from an

exact solution or accurately with numerical diagonalization where correlation functions

are not readily available [48, 49].

3.3.2 Single- and two-particle correlation functions

The thermodynamic properties do not differ from the Fermi liquid. There, compressibility

and susceptibility are renormalized by interactions, too, and the renormalization is given

by the Landau parameters F s0 and F a

0 . We neither see the anomalous power-laws not the

effects of charge-spin separation highlighted earlier. To this end, we carry on to the space-

and/or time-dependent correlation functions

RO(x, t) = −iΘ(t)⟨

[

O(x, t), O†(0, 0)]

±

⟩

(3.70)

of various operators O of interest. [. . .]± denotes commutator or anticommutator for

bosons and fermions, respectively. Other, e.g. time-ordered, correlation functions are

obtained in a similar way.

We give a rather explicit calculation for the single-electron Green function

Grs(xt) = −iΘ(t)〈Ψrs(xt),Ψ†rs(00)〉 ≡ −iΘ(t)

(

G(xt) + G(−x− t))

(3.71)

where Ψr,s(x) has been defined in Eq. (3.41), to sketch how such a calculation works in

practice, and to give some formulae useful for the work with boson operators. In (3.71), we

have incorporated that G is diagonal in r and s. Using the bosonization identity (3.41)

in (3.71), we first commute the U †rs-operator from Ψr,s(x) at the left of the expression

through the exponentials until it arrives at the right, where Ψ†rs(0) has a Urs. Being

unitary, we have U †rsUrs = 1. What are the terms we pick up during the commutations?

Urs commutes with ρrs(p 6= 0) by construction, so that the only nonvanishing terms come

from the operators Nrs measuring the charge excitations in the phase fields Φν and Θν .

These terms, however, involve prefactors 1/L so that their contribution vanishes in the

limit L → ∞. If we are interested in this thermodynamic limit, we can neglect both the

Urs- and Nrs-operators altogether. We see that the Luther-Peschel-Mattis formula (3.51)

(neglecting the Ur,s- and Nr,s-operators) gives the exact asymptotic behaviour of the Green

function! (This statement is not completely true for the many-particle functions: Urs

anticommutes with Ur′s′ if at least one index is different. When one considers operators O

pairing Ψr,s(x) with different indices, as we do in almost all two-particle functions below,

the Urs will produce phase factors. The exponent of the power-law is unaffected by these

phase factors but logarithmic or prefactor corrections crucially depend on them [50].)

After diagonalizing the Hamiltonian, the Green function becomes (dropping the indices

30

r and s)

G(xt) = limα→0

eirkF x

2πα

⟨

exp

(

− i√2

[

rΦρ(xt) − Θρ(xt)]

)

exp

(

i√2

[

rΦρ(00) − Θρ(00)]

)⟩

ρ

×

×⟨

exp

(

− i√2

[

rΦσ(xt) − Θσ(xt)]

)

exp

(

i√2

[

rΦσ(00) − Θσ(00)]

)⟩

σ

. (3.72)

However, we keep the momentum dependence of the interactions and do not use (3.50); we

denote the transformed fields by Φν and Θν . Moreover, since the ρ-phase fields commute

with the σ-fields, we have separated the exponentials into products involving only ρ and

σ separately. 〈. . .〉ν denotes the expectation value with the ν-part of the Hamiltonian.

Next we use the important relation

eAeB = eA+Be[A,B]/2 valid if [A,B] ∈ CC (3.73)

to merge all ν-phase fields into one exponential. The commutators contribute exp[Cν(xt)]

with

Cν(xt) = −πL

∑

p 6=0

e−α|p|e−ipx

p

([

Kν(p) +1

Kν(p)

]

i sin [vν(p)pt] + 2r cos [vν(p)t]

)

.

(3.74)

The expectation value 〈eA+B〉 ≡ exp[Dν(xt)] is evaluated using

〈expA〉 = exp(

1

2〈A2〉

)

(3.75)

valid for a linear form in boson operators whose exponential is averaged with a harmonic

oscillator (Gaussian) Hamiltonian. We find

Dν(xt) =π2

4L2

∑

p,p′ 6=0

e−α(|p|+|p′|)/2

pp′× (3.76)

×∑

R=±〈νR(p)νR(p′)〉

∏

P=p,p′

r√

Kν(P ) +R1

√

Kν(P )

(

e−iP (x−Rvν (P )t) − 1)

with

〈νr(p)νr(p′)〉 = δp,−p′

L|p|2π

(

Θ(rp)

exp [vν(p)p/2kT ] − 1+ Θ(−rp)

1 +1

exp [vν(p)p/2kT ] − 1

)

.

(3.77)

For T = 0, to be treated first, the Bose-Einstein distribution vanishes for p 6= 0, and we

can rearrange eCνeDν so that

Cν(xt) +Dν(xt) = −1

2

[

V ν+(xt) + V ν

−(xt) − 2rV ν0 (xt)

]

, (3.78)

V ν±(xt) =

1

2

∫ ∞

0

dp

pe−αpK±1

ν (p)[

1 − cos(px)e−ivν(p)pt]

, (3.79)

V ν0 (xt) =

i

2

∫ ∞

0

dp

pe−αp sin(px)e−ivν(p)pt . (3.80)

31

All correlation functions can be expressed in terms of V± and V0.

Now remember that in the Luttinger model a momentum transfer cutoff must be

imposed on the interactions, and the asymptotic values of Kν and vν are given by (3.35).

Taking e.g. V+, we split the integral in two terms by adding and subtracting [. . .] on the

right-hand side [51, 52]. Taking together (Kν − 1)[. . .], the important contributions will

come from p≪ 1/Λ, and we can replace vν(p) → vν there. The contribution of this term

to V+ then becomes

Kν − 1

4ln

(

Λν+ + ivνt+ ix

Λν+

)

+Kν − 1

4ln

(

Λν+ + ivνt− ix

Λν+

)

(3.81)

where the cutoff Λν+ is given by

ln

(

Λν+

Λ0

)

= − 1

Kν − 1

∫ ∞

0

dp

p

[

Kν(p) − 1 − (Kν − 1) e−Λ0p]

. (3.82)

Λ0 is arbitrary but finite. Since (3.81) would be obtained by taking an exponential cutoff

on Kν(p) − 1, (3.82) amounts to finding an equivalent exponential cutoff to the cutoff

of arbitrary form contained in Kν(p). In the following, we assume that there is a single

cutoff Λ in the problem independent of the indices ± and ν. In the second term from V+,

the only interaction-dependent quantity is vν(p). Here it is simplest to use the fact that

(3.81) can be obtained with an exponential cutoff Λ, add and subtract exp(−Λp) and use

vν resp. vF for the integrals weighted at small or large momentum. V0 is treated in the

same way. The final result is then [18, 51, 52, 53] (approximate expressions have been

given by many others)

G(x, t) =1

2πeirkF x lim

α→0

Λ + i(vF t− rx)

α+ i(vF t− rx)

∏

ν=ρ,σ

1√

Λ + i(vνt− rx)

(

Λ2

(Λ + ivνt)2 + x2

)γν

.

(3.83)

The exponent is

γν =1

8

(

Kν +1

Kν

− 2)

≥ 0 . (3.84)

Eq. (3.83) gives the universal behaviour of the Green function, which is independent

of detailed cutoff forms. Nonuniversal contributions which have been eliminated by the

trick of adding, subtracting and recombining terms above, can also be evaluated [54].

The spinless fermion result can be obtained by putting formally Kρ = Kσ = K and

vρ = vσ = v [32, 55].

For t = 0, the Green function decays as

Grs(x) ∼ x−1−α , α = 2∑

ν

γν ≥ 0 . (3.85)

The exponent α appears in all single-particle properties. α/2 is the “anomalous dimen-

sion” of the fermion operators. [It has become customary to use α both for the exponent

of the Green function and for the infinitesimal in the bosonization identity (3.41); the

32

context usually identifies clearly which α is referred to, and confusion seems unlikely.]

From Grs, one can derive the momentum distribution function [53, 56, 57]

n(k) ∼ 1

2− C1sign(k − kF ) | k − kF |α −C2(k − kF ) (3.86)

which does not have a jump at kF but rather a continuous power-law variation. An

exact calculation of the prefactors is also possible [53]. In (3.86) the breakdown of Fermi

liquid theory and the absence of quasi-particles are evident. Fermi liquids have a jump

discontinuity of amplitude zkF≤ 1 at kF where zk is the wave-function renormalization

constant, Eq. (2.4). However, the velocities do not enter and charge-spin separation does

not manifest itself, and only the absence of quasi-particles due to the Peierls-type coupling

of the two Fermi points is probed. The single-particle density of states N(ω) varies as a

power-law

N(ω) ∼| ω |α (3.87)

with the same exponent α. Again, exact but lengthy expressions are available [53].

The density-density correlation function consists out of several pieces, corresponding

to the wave vectors q ≈ 0 (ρ), q ≈ ±2kF (CDW), and q ≈ ±4kF (4kF -CDW), and, in

principle, higher multiples

Oρ(x) =∑

r,s

ρr,s(x) =√

2∑

r

ρr(x) = −√

2

π

∂Φρ(x)

∂x(3.88)

OCDW (x) =∑

s

Ψ†+,s(x)Ψ−,s(x)

=1

2πα

∑

s

U+,sU†−,s exp

−2ikFx +√

2i [Φρ(x) + sΦσ(x)]

(3.89)

≈ 1

παexp

−2ikFx +√

2iΦρ(x)

cos[√

2Φσ(x)] .

O4kF(x) =

∑

s

Ψ†+,s(x)Ψ†

+,−s(x)Ψ−,−s(x)Ψ−,s(x)

=2

(2πα)2exp

−4ikFx +√

8iΦρ(x)

. (3.90)

In the Luttinger model, the Urs-ladder operators give only contributions vanishing in the

thermodynamic limit L→ ∞ and have been dropped after (3.89) [see however the remark

after Eq. (3.71)]. Notice also that O4kFinvolves four fermions in the Luttinger model but,

as will be explained below, is part of the (two-particle) density operator in lattice models.

Moreover, the wavelength λ = 2π/4kF = (N0/L)−1 equals the inverse particle density.

Establishment of 4kF -CDW long-range order therefore corresponds to the formation of

a Wigner crystal, and we shall be interested in this possibility as well as its short-range

ordered variant below. The expectation values are evaluated exactly as in the case of the

Green function above, so that we only give the asymptotic decay laws

Rρ(x) =Kρ

(πx)2, (3.91)

RCDW (x) ∼ cos(2kFx) x−2+αCDW , αCDW = 2 −Kρ −Kσ , (3.92)

R4kF(x) ∼ cos(4kFx) x−2+α4kF , α4kF

= 2 − 4Kρ , (3.93)

33

We see that the 4kF -correlations decay very fast at weak-coupling but become competitive

with the 2kF ones when Kρ decreases [58]. For Kσ = 1, 4kF correlations dominate over

2kF for Kρ ≤ 1/3.

The other correlation functions follow similar power-laws. Long wavelength spin fluc-

tuations follow (3.91) with Kρ → Kσ. For later use, we also give the operators for the

x, y, z-components of the SDW correlations

OSDW,x(x) =∑

s

Ψ†+,s(x)Ψ−,−s(x)

=1

παexp

[

−2ikFx +√

2iΦρ(x)]

cos[√

2Θσ(x)]

(3.94)

OSDW,y(x) = −i∑

s

sΨ†+,s(x)Ψ−,−s(x)

=1

παexp

[

−2ikFx +√

2iΦρ(x)]

sin[√

2Θσ(x)]

(3.95)

OSDW,z(x) =∑

s

sΨ†+,s(x)Ψ−,s(x)

=i

παexp

[

−2ikFx +√

2iΦρ(x)]

sin[√

2Φσ(x)]

. (3.96)

The correlation functions decay as

RSDW (x) ∼ cos(2kFx)x−2+αSDW , (3.97)

αSDWx= αSDWy

= 2 −Kρ −K−1σ , αSDWz

= 2 −Kρ −Kσ . (3.98)

Singlet (SS) and triplet (TS) superconducting correlations do not oscillate and decay with

exponents

αSS = 2 −K−1ρ −Kσ , (3.99)

αTS0 = 2 −K−1ρ −Kσ , αTS±1 = 2 −K−1

ρ −K−1σ . (3.100)

Each correlation function has its proper special combination of the two parameters Kν in

the power-law exponent which therefore parameterize completely the scaling laws between

the exponents. Remember also that Kν relates the three velocities for each degree of

freedom, i.e. the spectrum of low-lying eigenvalues (3.32). Different is only the correlation

function of the long-wavelength charge or spin fluctuations. The operator ν(x)ν(0) is

marginal with a scaling dimension −2 and does not acquire an anomalous dimension.

Also its correlation function does not depend on a cutoff (in the other expressions, it has

simply been suppressed), as has been discussed in Section 3.3.1.

The three components of the spin density and triplet superconductivity operators

have very different representations in terms of the phase fields Φσ(x) and Θσ(x), and

their correlation functions differ (at least formally) even in the exponents. This is so

because our abelian bosonization scheme treats σz on a special footing and breaks the

spin-rotation symmetry SU(2) down to U(1). In the absence of external magnetic fields

or spin-anisotropic interactions, the correlation functions must be spin-rotation invariant.

We see that this requires Kσ = 1. We shall assume this to be the case throughout this

34

article except when stated to the contrary. Again, nonabelian bosonization would allow

to keep the spin-rotation invariance manifest at every stage of the calculation.

The Green function’s α is invariant under Kρ → 1/Kρ and therefore does not depend in

an important way on the sign of the interaction. It is positive and, had one only g2, would

be symmetric in attraction and repulsion. It is only g4 which slightly changes the modulus

of α when gi → −gi. α = 0 is possible only when the fluctuations on all branches are free

– the system may still be interacting, though, if g4 6= 0. On the other hand, the many-

particle correlations do depend on the sign of the interactions: Kρ < 1 for repulsion,

and Kρ > 1 for attraction. Consequently, for repulsive interactions, the 2kF density

wave correlations decay more slowly than for free fermions (∼ x−2), while for attractive

coupling, the superconducting correlations decay slowest. At first sight surprising will be

the fact that the correlation functions of density and spin density (as well as those for

singlet and triplet superconductivity) are strictly degenerate in the spin-rotation invariant

Luttinger model. This is quite counterintuitive, and nature is certainly richer than such

simple-minded results. On the other hand, the Luttinger liquid hypothesis requires that

this degeneracy of exponents carries over to more realistic models. The resolution of this

puzzle will be postponed to Chapter 4.

If one is interested in finite temperatures, there are several possibilities. (i) One can use

the conformal invariance of the Luttinger model to map the T = 0 correlation functions

onto those at T 6= 0. This will be demonstrated in the next section, Eq. (3.158). (ii) One

can introduce Matsubara frequencies and calculate the boson propagators ∼ Dν(xτ) at

imaginary times. (iii) One can simply use the Bose-Einstein distribution nBE(p) at finite

temperature in (3.77). This will decorate the integrals appearing in (3.79) and partly

those in (3.80) with factors coth(βvνp/2). The integrals can still be evaluated in terms

of logarithms of Gamma functions which, for small temperatures essentially add terms

lnπ[x± ivνt]/ sinh(π[x± ivνt]/vνβ) to (3.81). If x≫ vνβ, the hyperbolic sine will grow

exponentially, and correlation functions like (3.92) will therefore decay exponentially on

a scale set by the thermal coherence length ξT = πvF/T . If ξT ≫ 1/Λ, the power-laws

discussed before will still show up in the window in between.

Transforming to k-space, one has to distinguish between the instantaneous and static

correlation functions. Given a correlation function in x-space

Ri(x) ∼ cos(nkFx)x−2+αi , R(t) ∼ t−2+α , (3.101)

the instantaneous and static correlations behave as

Ri(k, t = 0) ∼ (k − nkF )1−αi , Ri(k, ω = 0) ∼ (k − nkF )−αi , (3.102)

respectively, with equivalent formulae for the ω-dependent local and q = 0-functions. For

free fermions, the static correlations have a logarithmic divergence which is changed into

a power law divergence by even weak interactions. On the other hand, the instantaneous

correlations are nonsingular usually (though possibly enhanced), and singularities can

only be brought up by rather strong interactions. Divergences of this kind have been

observed both in computer simulations and in X-ray scattering on quasi-1D materials,

and will be discussed below.

35

We have not discussed charge-spin separation in detail yet. While it is contained in

the full expression for the Green function (3.83), it does not influence the long-distance

or time properties of the correlation functions. It is clear that this subtle feature of

1D interacting fermions can only be probed in dynamic, q- and ω-resolved correlation

functions.

3.4 Dynamical correlations: the spectral properties

of Luttinger liquids

Fermi liquid theory breaks down in 1D for two reasons: (i) the anomalous dimensions

of the fermion operators, giving rise to the nonuniversal power laws discussed in the

preceding section, and (ii) charge-spin separation. Either of them is sufficient to kill all

quasi-particles in the neighbourhood of the Fermi surface, and both together will certainly

cooperate. However, all correlation functions of the previous section are affected only by

the anomalous dimensions. Much effort has been devoted to the study of these functions

over the last decade.

On the other hand, for a long time much less has been known about the dynamical

(x− and t− resp. q− and ω−dependent) correlations. Also, how to measure charge-spin

separation? Since this phenomenon is characterized by different propagation velocities

for charge and spin fluctuations, fully dynamical correlation functions are needed to put

it into evidence. The single-particle spectral function ρrs(q, ω) is defined as

ρrs(q, ω) = −1

πImGrs(rk + q, µ+ ω) (3.103)

where Grs is the retarded Green function (3.71), (3.83). There is no principal difficulty

in computing this quantity. All we need to do is Fourier transform. This can be done

quite easily for spinless fermions or for the one-branch Luttinger liquid (g2 = 0) but is

laborious for the full model for s = 1/2-fermions we are most interested in.

With spinless fermions we can single out the influence of the anomalous fermion di-

mensions. This is the generic structure [32, 53, 54, 59, 60]: At q = 0 (i.e. k = kF ),

ρ(0, ω) ∼| ω |α−1, i.e. a power-law divergence (or cusp-singularity for α > 1) instead

of the δ-function in Fermi liquid theory. Clearly, as the 1D correlations increase from

zero, spectral weight is pushed away from the Fermi surface by the virtual particle-hole

excitations generated by g2. Let us increase q. In a Fermi liquid, the δ-function would

disperse with q and broaden but essentially conserve its shape. In the Luttinger liquid,

ρ(q, ω) strongly deforms: There is a power law singularity ρ(q, ω) ∼ Θ(ω−vq)(ω−vq)γ0−1

at positive frequencies (for q > 0) and a weaker singularity ∼ Θ(−ω − vq)(−ω − vq)γ0

at negative frequencies. In the positive frequency contribution – particle creation above

the Fermi surface – spectral weight of an incoming particle is boosted to higher energies

by the particle-hole excitations on both branches. The negative frequency contribution

describes the destruction of particles above the Fermi surface present in the ground state

as a result of particle-hole excitations. As q increases, the negative frequency part is

exponentially suppressed and all the spectral weight is transferred to positive frequencies.

36

For the “one-branch” Luttinger liquid (g2 = 0, charge-spin separation only), one has

finite spectral weight only at positive frequencies (for q > 0) between vσq and vρq with

inverse-square-root divergences at the edges [53, 59, 61]. At kF , the spectral function

reduces to δ(ω) and the momentum distribution is a step function with a jump of unity at

kF , in agreement with Luttinger’s theorem [4]. Although this seems to imply a Fermi liquid

it is clear that the physical picture is quite different and that the notion of a quasi-particle

does not make sense because the δ-function does not survive the slightest displacement

from the Fermi surface. The incident electron decays into multiple particle–hole-like

charge and spin fluctuations which all live on the same branch as the incoming fermion.

It is immediately apparent that n(k) and, more generally, any quantity depending on k

or ω alone will fail to detect charge-spin separation. It can be seen only in quantities

depending on both q and ω.

We now turn to the spectral properties of the s = 1/2-Luttinger liquid [53, 54, 59, 60,

62]. We limit ourselves to the spin-rotation invariant case (γσ = 0). Fig. 3.6 displays the

dispersion of ρ(q, ω) for small q and α = 0.125. It is apparent that the spectral function

carries features both from the spinless fermions (synonymous with “anomalous fermion

dimensions”) and the one-branch problem (“charge-spin separation”). At very small q,

on the scale of the Figure, ρ looks pretty much like the spinless fermions’ function. As

q increases, the negative frequency weight (very small anyway) is transferred to positive

frequency but, most importantly, the generic two-peak structure of the spectral function

becomes apparent. The exponent of the singularity at vσq is 2γρ−1/2 while it is γρ −1/2

at the vρq-singularity and γρ at −vρq. Since γρ = 1/16 here, the correction to the one-

branch case is quite insignificant here and the charge-spin separation aspect is clearly

dominant at finite q. The weight above/below ±vρq originating from the anomalous

dimensions is barely visible. As α increases, the various power-law divergences weaken and

finally transform into cusp-singularities. At the same time, the spectral function becomes

much less structured, and spectral weight is shifted by the electronic correlations both to

above/below ±vρq, more reminiscent of the spinless fermion problem. As the correlations

increase, the features originating from charge-spin separation are more and more obscured

by transfers of spectral weight over significant energy scales. The important scale here is

the energy of the charge fluctuations ±vρq.

The spectral function in Figure 3.6 obeys to the sum rule

∫ ∞

−∞dωρrs(q, ω) = 1 for all q . (3.104)

The single-particle density of states N(ω) has already been discussed above. A local sum

rule is not satisfied by N(ω) unless g4‖ = 0 [51] as is the case for local interactions; in

general (long-range interactions), one has [53, 62, 63]

∫ ∞

0dω [Nrs(ω) −N0(ω)] = − 1

4πvF

∫ ∞

−∞

dk

2πg4‖(k) , (3.105)

N0(ω) = 1/2πvF being the noninteracting density of states. It is satisfied, however, by

the Tomonaga model with a finite bandwidth cutoff [63]. Here, as usual,∫∞0 dωN(ω) = n,

37

the particle density which is not changed by the interactions. The failure of the local

sum rule in the Luttinger model is certainly due to the introduction of the unphysical

negative-energy states which are sampled in the frequency integral.

The many-particle spectral functions display similar features. Fig. 3.7 displays the

charge [S(q, ω)] and spin [χ(q, ω)] structure factors at 2kF and the charge factor at 4kF

[S4(q, ω)] [53, 64]. Again there are power-law singularities at ω = ±vσq and ±vρq but

the functions now are symmetric because the CDW and SDW operators mix left- and

right-moving particles. At weak coupling, there are cusps, and only as Kρ < 1/2 do

they turn into divergences. Further interesting is the fact that the 2kF CDW and SDW

fluctuations are sensitive to charge-spin separation but the 4kF -CDW is not. This is easy

to understand from the boson representation of these operators (3.89) – (3.96): the 2kF -

operators necessarily involve the Φσ or Θσ-fields in addition to Φρ. The only divergent

4kF -operator, however, only depends on the charge field Φρ. 4kF -operators involving the

spin degrees of freedom are never divergent.

3.5 Alternative methods

3.5.1 Green function methods

There are alternative routes for solving the Tomonaga-Luttinger model, based on dia-

grammatic methods or equations of motion for the Green function. They provide an

interpretation of the novel physics of the Luttinger liquid from the standpoint of con-

ventional many-body theory, and therefore stress the formal similarities of Fermi and

Luttinger liquids while the bosonization approach more strongly emphasizes their differ-

ences. Moreover, the connection between symmetries, conservation laws and the low-

energy structure of 1D Fermi liquids may become more apparent in this approach which

we outline now. It has been pioneered by Dzyaloshinskii and Larkin for a spinless variant

of the model, Eq. (3.52) [34] and followed and extended by others [18, 35, 46, 65].

The power of the 1D conservation laws can be gauged from the fact that our ar-

guments for the breakdown of Fermi liquid theory in 1D in Section 2.1 were based on

divergences encountered in a perturbation treatment of the self-energy corrections to the

1D Green functions. As a consequence of Ward identities, vertex and self-energy correc-

tion cancel exactly in some quantities (such as density-density correlation functions) and

to such a large extent in others that meaningful answers are obtained and all results of

the bosonization approach reproduced.

What are Ward identities? They are specific relations between the vertex operators

and (single or n-particle) Green functions of a theory, translating its conservation laws i.e.

its symmetries, into a Green function formalism which describes the dynamics of the ex-

citations. Vertex operators couple the charges and currents of a system to external fields.

They involve the corresponding density operator (e.g. ρ(p), jρ(p)) plus two (more gen-

erally 2n) fermions. The equation of motion for the vertex operator in general produces

Green functions involving even more particles. If the charge is conserved, however, ρ(p)

obeys the continuity equation. Combining it with the equation of motion of the simple

38

vertex described, yields just the difference of the two single-particle propagators involved,

instead of complicated objects involving intermediate excitations. The principle is easy:

use the continuity equation associated with the conserved charge to reduce the equations

of motion for the object under consideration, then Fourier transform the resulting expres-

sion to recover an algebraic relation. This is particularly transparent for density-density

response which we study now before carrying on to the single-particle Green function.

In Section 3.1.3, we had studied the conservation of charge and spin separately on

each branch of the dispersion. This generates the following continuity equations for the

charge and spin densities and currents from the Heisenberg equations of motion

i∂ν(p, t)

∂t= [ν(p, t), H ] = −vJν p jν(p, t) (3.106)

i∂ν(p, t)

∂t= [ν(p, t), H ] = −vNν p jν(p, t) (3.107)

with the total charge (ν = ρ) and spin (ν = σ) densities and currents

ν(p) =∑

r

νr(p) and jν(p) =∑

r

rνr(p) . (3.108)

In the Green function approach, it is the physical charge and spin densities which enter

the various operators. For this reason, we define in this section, and only in this section

νr(p) = ρr↑(p) ± ρr↓(p) (3.109)

at variance with the remainder of this paper. This will avoid a confusing proliferation of

factors√

2 due to the different definition in (3.22). The “axial” charge and spin densities

and currents (named after similar constructions appearing in field theory) are

ν(p) =∑

r

rνr(p) and jν(p) =∑

r

νr(p) (3.110)

and are identical to the usual currents and charges, Eq. (3.108), respectively. vJν and vNν

are the velocities for charge and current excitations [3] defined earlier (3.32).

Notice in passing that both equations can be put together to produce the equations

of motion of a harmonic oscillator [46]

∂2ν(p, t)

∂t2+ vJνvNν p

2 ν(p, t) = 0 , (3.111)

indicating that the charge (spin) density fluctuations are the elementary excitations of the

systems which propagate with an effective (sound) velocity√vJνvNν . The conservation

laws thus completely determine the dynamics of our system.

For illustration, we investigate the density-density correlation function

Rρρ(q, ω) =∫ ∞

−∞dteiωtRρρ(q, t) , Rρρ(q, t) = − i

L〈Tρ(q, t)ρ(−q, 0)〉 . (3.112)

T is the time ordering operator. Applying i∂t to this equation and using (3.106), we have

i∂Rρ(q, t)

∂t=

i

LvJρq〈Tjρ(q, t)ρ(−q, 0)〉 +

1

Lδ(t)〈[ρ(q), ρ(−q)]〉 (3.113)

39

where the last term originates from taking the time derivatives of the step functions

implied by time ordering but vanishes on account of the commutator algebra Eq. (3.17).

A first Ward identity is obtained from the Fourier transform

ωRρρ(q, ω) − vJρqRjρρ(q, ω) = 0 . (3.114)

Similar Ward identities can be derived for Rjρρ(q, ω) (with the difference that [jρ(q), ρ(q)]

6= 0) and for the axial charges and currents (3.110). The second derivative of the density-

density correlation function is then

− ∂2Rρρ(q, t)

∂t2= vJρvNρq

2Rρρ(q, t) +2vJρq

2

πδ(t) , (3.115)

which is Fourier transformed into

Rρρ(q, ω) =2

π

vJρq2

ω2 − v2ρq

2with vρ =

√vJρvNρ . (3.116)

Eq. (3.113) is an example of a very simple – yet manifestly powerful – Ward identity.

Metzner and Di Castro [46] give many more.

Now consider the single-particle Green function

Grs(k, t) = −i〈Tcrs(k, t)c†rs(k, 0)〉 (3.117)

which obeys the equation of motion [35]

(ω − rvFk)Grs(k, ω) = 1 + i∑

ν,q

∫ dΩ

2π

[

g2ν(1 − 2δν,σδs,↓)Fν−rrs(k, ω; k + q, ω + Ω; q,Ω)

+g4ν(1 − 2δν,σδs,↓)Fνrrs(k, ω; k + q, ω + Ω; q,Ω)] . (3.118)

To get (3.118), take i∂tGrs(k, t) using the Heisenberg equation of motion and Fourier

transform; deriving the T -operator gives the 1, taking the commutator with H0 gives

rvFkGrs, and the commutators with H2 and H4 and using (3.22) to go from the ρrs to

the νr, gives the vertex functions

F νr′rs(k1, t1; k2, t2; qt) = −〈Tνr′(qt)crs(k2, t2)c†rs(k1, t1)〉 (3.119)

Continuing now without using (3.106) would lead to a hopeless hierarchy of equations.

However, (3.119) obeys a remarkable Ward identity

qF νr′rs(k, ω; k+q, ω+Ω; q,Ω) = rπ(1−2δν,σδs,↓)Rνr′νr

(q,Ω) [Grs(k, ω) −Grs(k + q, ω + Ω)]

(3.120)

which helps to simplify the problem. The one-branch density-density correlation function

Rνr′νr(q, ω) = − i

L

∫

dteiωt〈Tνr′(qt)νr(−q0)〉 =

rqπ

ω+r(vNν+vJν)q/2ω2−(vνq)2

for r = r′

1π

(vJν−vNν)q2/2ω2−(vνq)2

for r = −r′(3.121)

40

can itself be derived from (3.113) and related Ward identities. One can now eliminate

the vertex function from (3.118) and close the equation of motion for the Green function.

The resulting integral equation is then solved by Fourier transforming back to a real space

differential equation and taking into account boundary and analyticity conditions. The

result agrees with the expression (3.83) up to details of cutoff procedures. Notice that

the Ward identity for F νr′rs (3.120) involves the chiral (charge and spin) density operators

νr. It therefore is the consequence of two separate Ward identities, one for the density∑

r νr which is present also in the many-body problem in higher dimensions, and a new

one involving the axial density∑

r rνr which is new and related to the disconnected 1D

Fermi “surface” and the absence of backscattering in the Luttinger model.

In these two examples, we have rederived results via Ward identities which are also

quite easy to derive from bosonization. There are others where the derivation via Ward

identities are easier than with bosonization. An example is the intra- or inter-branch

polarization bubble Πρrr′(q, ω) which is related to the density correlation function (3.121)

by Dyson’s equation

Rρrρr′(q, ω) = Πρ

rr′(q, ω) +∑

tt′Πρ

rt(q, ω)gtt′ρRρt′ρr′(q, ω) , (3.122)

represented graphically in Figure 3.4. grr′ρ denotes g2ρ or g4ρ. The polarization Πρrr′ is

given by the irreducible vertex Λρrr′s and the exact single-particle Green functions Gr′s

Πρrr′(qω) = −i

∑

s

∫ dkdΩ

(2π)2Λρ

rr′s(k,Ω; k+ q, ω+Ω; q, ω)Gr′s(k,Ω)Gr′s(k+ q,Ω+ω) (3.123)

as shown in Fig. 3.5. Λ is obtained from F by amputating the external fermion legs, i.e.

dividing by the product of the two Green functions involved in (3.120) and taking only

the interaction-irreducible part of F . Π must be a wildly divergent function because the

Green functions have divergences and the vertex corrections certainly have divergences,

too! This is not true, however, and with the Ward identity (3.120), converted into one

for Λ, one obtains the simple, finite results

Πρr,−r(q, ω) = 0 , (3.124)

Πρrr(q, ω) =

−iω − rvF q

∑

s

∫ dkdΩ

(2π)2[Grs(k,Ω) −Grs(k + q,Ω + ω)]

=r

π

q

ω − vF q≡ Πρ(0)

rr (q, ω) . (3.125)

This result is remarkable: all vertex and self-energy corrections have cancelled out as

a consequence of the Ward identities, and the polarization is identical to Πρ(0) of free

fermions. Eq. (3.122) then reduces to a standard RPA summation, showing that RPA

is exact for the density-density correlation functions. Moreover, the charge and spin

susceptibilities limq→0 limω→0Rνν(q, ω) are finite, in agreement with (3.62). The Luttinger

liquids therefore are “normal” metals. This is entirely due to the conservation laws and

Ward identities which enforce the cancellation of all divergences which would occur in a

diagrammatic development.

41

Of course, one can also compute all the many-particle Green functions, and construct

the same picture as in the preceding sections using the standard many-body formalism.

We reemphasize that in the exact solutions we had found, both the Ward identities related

to the charges (currents) and to the axial charges (currents) were essential. It is the latter

one that gives the one-dimensional Fermi liquids their special properties.

Similar results can also be obtained by more diagram-based techniques [18, 34, 65]. In

this case, the Ward identities are expressed by the theorem that closed fermion loops with

more than two fermion lines vanish (equivalent in the vanishing of the transverse current

in quantum electrodynamics). The limitation to forward scattering only in the Luttinger

model implies that a closed fermion line has all of its parts on a definite branch r.

Moreover, one can use the Ward identities to construct a field-theoretical renormaliza-

tion group formulation of the Luttinger model with respect to the free Fermi gas [46, 66].

This verifies that all couplings are dimensionless, and that consequently, the beta-function

β(g) = Λ

(

∂g

∂Λ

)

≡ 0 (3.126)

at the Luttinger liquid fixed point. The density operators do not acquire anomalous

dimensions, and the coupling constants are renormalization group invariants. It also

verifies the correctness of the earlier scaling Ansatz [18].

3.5.2 Other bosonic schemes

In Section 3.2.2, we have solved the Luttinger model via a boson representation of the

Hamiltonian and of the fermion operators. Other bosonic approaches, based on functional

integrals and a Hubbard-Stratonovich decoupling have been developed in the past [61, 67].

They are closer to the methods used in quantum field theory than Haldane’s operator

approach. They also provide an exact solution of the model, and reproduce all the results

obtained by the two methods presented above. Which one to use is rather a matter of

taste and background than of the specific nature of the problem at hand.

A bosonic scheme widely used for strongly correlated fermions are “slave bosons” and

one may naturally wonder if there is any relation to the bosonization discussed above.

Slave bosons are usually applied to problems where double occupancy of lattice sites is

dynamically forbidden because of strong electronic repulsion. One tries to circumvent the

difficult treatment of inequality constraints (such as 〈ni〉 ≤ 1) by introducing additional

particles into an enlarged Hilbert space whereby the inequality constraint translates into

an equality constraint which can be solved by Lagrange multipliers. Properties are then

obtained by projecting back onto the physical Hilbert space. From these remarks, it is

quite clear that slave bosons and the Tomonaga-Luttinger bosons are two distinct entities.

While the latter are the elementary excitations of the 1D Fermi liquid, the former are, in

the first place, a bookkeeping device to obtain good approximations to fermionic proper-

ties. Still, slave bosons have been used successfully, together with standard bosonization,

to obtain low-energy properties of, e.g., the U = ∞ Hubbard model [68]. A deeper knowl-

edge of differences and similarities of both types of bosons is, however, just beginning to

emerge [69].

42

3.6 Conformal field theory and bosonization

In the language of the theory of phase transitions, one-dimensional Fermi liquids are

critical at T = 0. An arbitrary system, close to a second order phase transition, exhibits

strong precursor fluctuations of the ordered phase, whose typical size is measured by the

correlation length ξ ∼ |(T−Tc)/Tc|−ν which diverges as the critical point Tc is approached.

Thermodynamic properties (specific heat, magnetization, etc.) exhibit similar divergences

whose sole origin is the divergence in ξ. Therefore, their critical exponents can be related

by scaling relations to ν and the dimension of space. These scaling relations only depend

on the symmetry of the theory (universality). At the critical point, correlation functions

decay as power-laws of distance and time with some critical exponents which generally

can be calculated from the model under consideration [70]. The power-law correlations of

one-dimensional Fermi liquids found in Section 3.3, show explicitly that we have a T = 0

quantum critical point.

3.6.1 Conformal invariance at a critical point

Conformal field theory is a powerful means of characterizing universality classes of critical

systems in 2D statistical mechanics or 1D quantum field theories [time playing the role

of a second dimension, these theories in fact are (1+1)D] in terms of a single dimension-

less number, the central charge c of the underlying Virasoro algebra [29]. The critical

exponents are the scaling dimensions of the various operators in a conformally invariant

theory and, generically, are fully determined by c. A notable exception are theories with

central charge c = 1 such as the Gaussian model, of particular relevance to the problems

considered here, where the exponents (scaling dimensions) depend on a single effective

coupling constant of the model. Both the central charge and the scaling dimensions can

be computed from the finite-size scaling properties of the ground state energy and the

low-lying excitations [29, 71]. This is important because these quantities can be computed

accurately either by Bethe Ansatz (for models solvable by the technique) or, in any case,

by numerical diagonalization.

What are the symmetries of systems at a critical point? It is certainly translationally

and rotationally invariant. Quantum field theories, in addition are Lorentz invariant but

in (1+1)D, Lorentz invariance reduces to rotations in the x = (x, t)-plane. As we have

seen above, a system at criticality, in addition is characterized by scale invariance,

x → λx . (3.127)

It turns out that the combined rotational and scale invariance implies that the system

is invariant under a wider symmetry group, the global conformal group. On a classical

level, conformal transformations are general coordinate transformations which leave the

angles between two vectors invariant. In dimension D > 2, the global conformal group is

finite-dimensional, and so is the associated Lie algebra of its generators. There is a finite

number of constraints, and these allow for an evaluation of the two-point and three-point

correlation functions, but not for the higher ones.

43

The situation is different in two dimensions, where all correlation functions can be

determined. Consider a general coordinate transformation

x → x′ = x + ξ(x) . (3.128)

For this transformation to be conformal, ξ must satisfy certain constraints which can

be expressed in a differential equation (Killing-Cartan equation). In general dimension

D, this leaves for ξ(x) a polynomial of second degree in x (with tensor coefficients). In

two dimensions, however, the Killing-Cartan equation reduces to the Cauchy-Riemann

equation, and therefore all analytic functions are allowed for conformal transformations.

This group of transformations, called local conformal group, is much wider than the global

conformal group encountered before. It is then natural to switch to complex variables

z, z = x1 ± ix2, so that we have

z → z + ξz(z) = f(z) , z → z + ξ z(z) = f(z) . (3.129)

To determine the algebra corresponding to the local conformal group, we need the com-

mutation relations of the generators of the transformations. Since ξz(z) and f(z) are

analytic, they can be expanded in a Laurent series

ξz(z) =∞∑

n=−∞ξnz

n+1 (3.130)

[and a similar equation for ξ(z)], and we find the generators of the local conformal trans-

formations

ℓn(z) = −zn+1∂z , ℓn(z) = −zn+1∂z , n ∈ ZZ . (3.131)

These generators obey the local conformal algebra

[ℓm, ℓn] = (m− n)ℓm+n , [ℓm, ℓn] = (m− n)ℓm+n , [ℓm, ℓn] = 0 . (3.132)

This infinite dimensional algebra is called the classical Virasoro algebra. (The global

conformal algebra is generated by ℓ−1, ℓ0, ℓ1.) Since the two algebras are independent,

one may take z and z as independent, corresponding to the natural variables for left- and

right-moving objects; the physical theory then lives on z = z⋆.

We now go to the quantum (or statistical mechanics) case. How do fields and corre-

lation functions of a quantum field theory transform under conformal transformations?

In general, an infinitesimal symmetry variation in a field φ is generated by δξφ = ξ[Q, φ]

where Q is the conserved charge associated with the symmetry. Local coordinate trans-

formations are generated by the charges constructed from the stress-energy tensor Tij .

Rotational invariance constrains Tij to be symmetric, and scale invariance requires its

trace to vanish; then conformal invariance does not impose additional constraints showing

that it is implied by rotational and dilatational invariance. Translating these conditions

into the complex variables z and z, one can show that only the diagonal components

T (z) ≡ Tzz(z) and T (z) ≡ Tzz(z) (3.133)

44

do not vanish. In the radial quantization scheme, the conserved charge then becomes

Q =1

2πi

∮

[

dzT (z)ξ(z) + dzT (z)ξ(z)]

, (3.134)

which generates a field variation

δξ,ξφ(w, w) =1

2πi

∫

dz [T (z)ξ(z), φ(w, w)] + dz[

T (z)ξ(z), φ(w, w)]

. (3.135)

In general, it is difficult at this point to proceed further without having explicit expressions

at hand. There is, however, a distinctive class of fields, to be called primary fields, for

which

δξ,ξφ(w, w) =(

h∂zξz(z) + ξz(z)∂z + h∂z ξ

z(z) + ξ z(z)∂z

)

φ(w, w) (3.136)

which can be recognized as the infinitesimal version of

φ(w, w) →(

∂f

∂w

)h (∂f

∂w

)h

φ(f(w), f(w)) . (3.137)

All other fields are called secondary fields. h and h are two real numbers, the conformal

weights of the field φ. The combinations ∆ = h+h and s = h−h are the scaling dimension

and spin of the field φ, respectively [if one works in a basis of eigenstates of L0 and L0, the

combinations L0+L0 and i( L0−L0) are generators of dilations and rotations, respectively].

Eq. (3.137) is the transformation law of a complex tensor of rank h, h. Normally, such

a tensor transforms with integer powers of ∂f/∂z and ∂f/∂z which are the number of

z and z indices; here, however, one could conceive also noninteger exponents. They are

called anomalous dimensions. As a consequence, the scaling dimension of the field φ also

can become anomalous. We have seen examples in the Luttinger model in the preceding

section.

One reason for the special status of primary fields is that one can derive (in fact in any

dimension) some of their correlation functions from the transformation property (3.136).

The two-point function G(2) = 〈φ1(z1, z1)φ2(z2, z2)〉 must be invariant under a conformal

transformation (3.129)

δξ,ξG(2)(zi, zi) = 〈(δξ,ξφ1)φ2〉 + 〈φ1δξ,ξφ2〉 = 0 . (3.138)

Using the transformation law (3.136), one can derive a differential equation for G(2) which

can be solved to yield

G(2)(zi, zi) =C12

z2h12 z

2h12

, (3.139)

where zij = zi − zj and C12 ∝ δ∆1,∆2 is a constant. The three-point function G(3) can

be determined in a similar manner, but the four-point function, at the present stage of

development, can only be determined up to a function of the cross-ratio z12z34/z13z24.

Not all fields are primary fields. For the primary fields to transform according to

(3.136), the operator product expansion (OPE) of the stress-energy tensor with φ for

short distances must go as

T (z)φ(w, w) =h

(z − w)2φ(w, w) +

1

z − w∂wφ(w, w) + . . . , (3.140)

45

where radial ordering is implied, and there is an equivalent equation for the anti-holomorphic

(left-moving) piece of the stress-energy tensor. (In the following, we always imply the ex-

istence of such equivalent equations for the anti-holomorphic dependences.) A secondary

field has a higher than double-pole singularity in its OPE with T (z). The most prominent

representative is T (z) itself

T (z)T (w) =c/2

(z − w)4+

2

(z − w)2T (w) +

1

z − w∂T (z) . (3.141)

The coefficient c (= c ≥ 0) is called the central charge. It cannot be determined by

the requirement of conformal invariance alone, and will depend on the theory studied.

Different values of c will imply different universality classes.

The nonvanishing of c represents an anomaly which often occurs in problems with

local symmetries. It means that a classical symmetry cannot be implemented quantum-

mechanically due to renormalization effects. Therefore not all fields but only the primary

fields transform according to (3.136). As will be seen below, T (z) determines the change in

action under a local coordinate transformation. In a path-integral formalism, the anomaly

in T then implies that the complete measure cannot be made conformally invariant. The

anomaly is also called Schwinger term. As examples, for a free boson φ(z), T (z) =:

[∂zφ(z)]2 : /2 and c = 1; free real (Majorana) fermions ψ(z), relevant for the 2D Ising

model, have T (z) =: ψ(z)∂zψ(z) : /2 and c = 1/2; finally, free complex (Dirac) fermions

Ψ(z), relevant for the Luttinger model, have T (z) = i : [∂zΨ†(z)]Ψ(z) − Ψ†(z)∂zΨ(z) : /2

and c = 1 like the bosons.

This anomaly has important consequences for the algebra of the generators of the local

conformal transformations on the quantum level. Just as above on the classical level, one

can derive the algebra of the generators from a Laurent expansion of the stress-energy

tensor

T (z) =∞∑

n=−∞Lnz

−n−2 . (3.142)

Using (3.141), we obtain the Virasoro algebra with central extension c

[Ln, Lm] = (n−m)Ln+m +c

12(n3 − n)δn+m,0 ,

[Ln, Lm] = (n−m)Ln+m +c

12(n3 − n)δn+m,0 , (3.143)

[

Ln, Lm

]

= 0 .

The classical Virasoro algebra is recovered for c = 0. Every conformal quantum field

theory defines a representation of (3.143) with some central charge c, c. The Ln are the

generators of transformations of quantum fields associated with the monomial of degree

n+ 1 in z. For ξz(z) = −ξnzn+1, we have

δφ(z, z) = −ξn[Ln, φ(z, z)] . (3.144)

Unitarity constrains the generators to satisfy

L†m = L−m (3.145)

46

and regularity of the stress-energy tensor at the origin implies

Lm|0〉 = 0 , m ≥ −1 and L†m|0〉 = 0 , m ≤ −1 (3.146)

in their action on the vacuum |0〉.There are two more important properties of the stress-energy tensor. Under a local

conformal transformation to z′ = f(z), it transforms as

T (z) → T ′(z) =

(

dz′

dz

)2

T (z′) +c

12z′, z , (3.147)

z′, z =∂3

zz′

∂zz′− 3(∂2

zz′)2

2(∂zz′)2. (3.148)

The first term in (3.147) translates the fact that T (z) is a field of conformal weight (2, 0)

in agreement with (3.141) above, while the second term contains the conformal anomaly.

(3.148) is known as the Schwarzian derivative.

We now turn to the representations of the Virasoro algebra, i.e. the states of our

Hilbert space. In general, the representations of symmetry groups are constructed from

highest weight vectors (states). Such a highest weight state |h〉 is created by the action

of a holomorphic primary field φ on the vacuum, at the origin

|h〉 = φ(0)|0〉 , L0|h〉 = h|h〉 , Ln|h〉 = 0 , n > 0 . (3.149)

|h〉 is thus eigenstate of L0. The Ln, n > 0 are the lowering operators annihilating |h〉.The corresponding raising operators are L−n, n > 0 and, acting on |h〉, generate the

descendant states

L−n1 . . . L−nk|0〉 6= 0 , 1 ≤ n1 ≤ . . . ≤ nk . (3.150)

They form a basis for the representation vector space. The eigenvalue of L0 on the state

(3.150) is h+n1 + . . .+nk. The highest weight state |h〉 has the lowest eigenvalue among

all the states that can be created out of it by acting with the raising operators. It is the

ground state in a given sector of the theory. The descendants are the excited states. The

Ln (n > 0) act as an infinite number of harmonic oscillator annihilation operators, and

the L†n = L−n then are the creation operators. The level of the state (3.150) is

∑ki=1 nk,

and the level associated with an operator L−n is n. The number of basis vectors on a

given level N is P (N), the number of partitions of N . The conformal weight of all the

descendant states on level N is h + N . The vector space generated from |h〉 is called

Verma module.

All states (and fields) in a conformal field theory can be grouped into conformal families

(towers). They consist of a highest weight state |h〉 and all the descendant states generated

by the application of the raising operators L−n. The different highest weight states are

obtained from the action of the different primary fields φn(z) [or, more generally, φn(z, z)]

on the vacuum according to (3.149). The conformal families offer a very convenient way

to classify the excitations in the system and the spectrum of the scaling dimensions.

47

All correlation functions involving secondary fields can be calculated from those con-

taining primary fields only, by acting on them with a differential operator obtained from

the transformation property (3.144). From global conformal invariance, we also know the

two-point correlation functions of the primary fields, Eq. (3.139), and can construct the

three-point function according to the same scheme. What about the n-point function for

primary fields? It may happen that on a given level of the theory, say k, the states are not

linearly independent but that there is a combination of states that vanishes (the family

is then said to be degenerate at level k). The equation describing this degeneracy can

then be transformed into a differential equation to be satisfied for an arbitrary correlation

function of primary fields, if at least one of them is degenerate. In this way, it is possible

to obtain, for conformal field theories with degenerate families, all correlation functions.

Unitary representations of the Virasoro algebra only exist for certain values of c and

h

c ≥ 1 , h ≥ 0 (3.151)

or c = 1 − 6

m(m + 1), hp,q(m) =

[(m + 1)p−mq]2 − 1

4m(m+ 1)(3.152)

with m = 3, 4, . . . , 1 ≤ p ≤ m− 1 , 1 ≤ q ≤ p ,

and at least the discrete series (3.152) does indeed have degenerate families. The models

belonging to this discrete series have quantized critical exponents [72] contained in (3.152).

The most famous among them is the 2D Ising model with c = 1/2.

Up to now, we have implicitly assumed that our fields are defined in the infinite z-

plane. What happens when we consider finite systems? From Eq. (3.146), we deduce

that

〈T (z)〉 =∞∑

m=−∞

⟨

0∣

∣

∣

∣

Lm

zm+2

∣

∣

∣

∣

0⟩

= 0 (3.153)

in the infinite complex z plane. Now use the exponential transformation

z = exp(

2πi

Lu)

, u =L

2πilog z (3.154)

to map the infinite z-plane onto a strip (u) of width L with periodic boundary conditions.

Observe that under this transformation, the mode expansion (3.142) simply becomes a

Fourier transformation, and the Virasoro generators Ln become the Fourier coefficients of

the stress-energy tensor. We obtain

Tstrip(u) =(

Tplane(z) −c

12u, z

)

(

dz

du

)2

(3.155)

and with (3.153) therefore

〈Tstrip(u)〉 =c

24

(

2π

L

)2

. (3.156)

The stress-energy tensor measures the cost of energy [change in the action δS = (−1/2π) ×∫

Tij∂iξjd2r] of a change in metric. One can now calculate the change in energy associated

48

with another (nonconformal) transformation, a horizontal dilatation of the u-strip [u′1 =

(1 + ε)u1, u′2 = u2] which changes the length of the system, and integrate to find

E(L) − E(∞) =cπ

6L, (3.157)

where E(L) is the energy per unit length [71]. This formula is extremely important

because it allows us to determine the value of the central charge from calculations on

finite systems! Moreover, it suggests an interpretation of the anomaly (3.148) as a Casimir

effect, i.e. a shift in the energy due to the finite geometry of the system. The mathematical

reason is that the local conformal transformations (with the exception of the global ones)

are (i) usually not defined in all points of the complex plane and (ii) are not one-to-one

mappings of the complex plane on itself.

The exponential transformation (3.154) is also important to obtain the scaling dimen-

sions of primary fields from finite-size calculations [73]. The two-point correlation function

of a primary operator φ(z, z) with conformal weights h, h transforms under a conformal

transformation (3.154) into

〈φ(u, u)φ(u′, u′)〉 =(π/L)2∆

(sinh[π(u− u′)/L])2h (sinh[π(u− u′)/L])2h. (3.158)

[Notice in passing: correlation functions at finite temperature 1/β must satisfy periodic

boundary conditions in the Matsubara time τ = it. (3.158) then gives directly the finite

temperature expressions for the correlation functions of the preceding section if we put

L = 2vβ, as suggested in Section 3.3.] Writing u = u1 + iu2 and going on the physical

surface u = u⋆, this can be expanded as

〈φ(u, u)φ(u′, u′)〉 =(

2π

L

)2∆ ∞∑

N,N=0

aNaN exp[−2π(∆ +N + N)(u1 − u′1)/L]

× exp[2πi(s +N − N)(u2 − u′2)/L] . (3.159)

Here, ∆ and s are scaling dimension and spin of the operator, respectively. The correlation

function can also be calculated using operators φ(u2) which act on the states |n, k〉 of a

Hilbert space

〈φ(u)φ(u′)〉 =∑

n

〈0|φ(u2)|n, k〉e−(En−E0)(u1−u′1)〈n, k|φ(u′2)|0〉 , (3.160)

where the matrix elements depend on u2 as exp(iku2) with momentum k. Comparing

(3.159) with (3.160), we find that energies and momenta scale as

E(L)n (N, N) = E

(L)0 + 2πv(∆ +N + N)/L , (3.161)

k(L)(N, N) = k(∞) + 2π(s+N − N)/L . (3.162)

Here, the energies are taken on the system of length L, and v is the velocity of the

excitations. In (3.162), we have allowed for a finite momentum k(∞) of the highest weight

state in the conformal tower built by the primary field φ, extrapolated to the infinite

49

system. Eqs. (3.161), (3.162) show that on a finite strip, each primary operator generates

the whole spectrum of scaling dimensions and momenta of the conformal tower, i.e. also

those of the descendant operators at level (N, N).

There are thus two ways to obtain the scaling dimensions and correlation functions

of a conformal field theory; (i) one can construct the stress-energy tensor; from its trans-

formation properties (3.147) or its OPE with itself (3.141), one can deduce c, and from

its OPE with other fields one obtains their scaling dimensions (3.140). (ii) one can study

the finite size scaling behaviour of the ground state and a set of excited states, and ob-

tain the central charge from Eq. (3.157). Going back now from z, z = z⋆ to (x, t) and

extrapolating L → ∞, the correlation functions of a primary (h, h) field φ(xt) are then

given from (3.139)

〈φ(xt)φ(00)〉 =eik(∞)xeik(∞)x

(x+ ivt)2h(x− ivt)2h(3.163)

and those of the descendant fields have the same structure with the corresponding (h +

N, h+ N).

3.6.2 The Gaussian model

The first problem beyond the discrete classification scheme (3.152) – also the most impor-

tant in the context of the present article – is given by theories with central charge c = 1

and realized by free bosons, precisely the spinless Luttinger model, or the Gaussian model

of statistical mechanics. Here, we give a conformal field theory analysis. The action for

free bosons is given by

S =1

2π

∫

dz dz(∂zΦ)(∂zΦ) , Φ ≡ Φ(z, z) , (3.164)

and the equivalence to the Luttinger model is clear when represented in terms of phase

fields (3.49) or (3.58). The model is critical and manifestly conformally invariant, and

remains so even upon introducing a dimensionless coupling constant g as a prefactor in S,

for all values of g [cf. below after Eq. (3.187)]. The solution of the equations of motion

can be given in terms of left- and right-moving (holomorphic and anti-holomorphic) fields

Φ(z, z) = [φ(z) + φ(z)]/2 where z, z = x± iy. Their correlation functions are

〈φ(z)φ(w)〉 = − log(z − w) , 〈φ(z)φ(w)〉 = − log(z − w) . (3.165)

The fields φ(z) are not conformal fields, but their derivatives are. To show this, we

need the stress-energy tensor which can be identified from the change in the action δS =

(−1/2π)∫

Tij∂iξjd2r under a conformal transformation r → r + ξ of the fields φ as (after

going to the complex z-plane)

T (z) = −1

2: [∂φ(z)]2 :≡ −1

2limd→0

[

∂φ

(

z +d

2

)

∂φ

(

z − d

2

)

− 1

d2

]

, (3.166)

where the identity defines the normal-ordering convention. From the OPE of φ with the

stress-energy tensor, we find

T (z)∂φ(w) =∂φ(w)

(z − w)2+

1

z − w∂2φ(w) + . . . , (3.167)

50

which, comparing with Eq. (3.140), indeed identifies ∂φ as a primary field with conformal

weights (1, 0). It is now possible to write down a mode expansion (Laurent series) for the

field ∂φ(z)

J(z) ≡ i∂φ(z) =∞∑

n=−∞

Jn

zn+1, Jn =

∮

dz

2πiznJ(z) . (3.168)

Again, on a cylinder, i.e. periodic boundary conditions for a (1+1)D field theory, the Jn

simply are the Fourier components of the current J(z). Their algebra from (3.168) is

[Jn, Jm] = nδn+m,0 , (3.169)

the U(1)-Kac-Moody algebra. We immediately note that the algebra of the Jn, (i) up to

the factor n which can be absorbed into a redefinition of Jn, is a bosonic one, and (ii)

is identical to the algebra satisfied by the Luttinger density operators ρrs, Eq. (3.17).

Physically, this identifies the Jn as (chiral) density fluctuation modes or currents, which

is the same because we look at a single branch only. The modes with n < 0 are creation

operators, and those with n > 0 are annihilation operators

Jn|0〉 = 0 for n > 0 . (3.170)

The correlation function of the currents J(z) = i∂φ(z) is

〈J(z)J(w)〉 =1

(z − w)2(3.171)

from (3.139) and the conformal weights (1, 0). Of course, for free bosons, these results

can also be obtained directly by simply calculating a Gaussian integral.

Eq. (3.169) is a special case of a more general expression

[Jan , J

bm] = ifabcJc

n+m + knδabδn+m,0 (3.172)

satisfied by the current generators Jan of a more general Lie group, e.g. SU(2) as appears

in nonabelian bosonization schemes [20]. fabc are its structure constants, and the integer

k is the level of the Kac-Moody algebra. The central charge of the associated Virasoro

algebra is related to the level k by c = 3k/(k + 2). We do not go into further details

here, although we shall encounter an example of a U(1)-Kac-Moody algebra with c 6= 1

in Section 6.3 when we discuss the chiral Luttinger liquids formed by the edge excitations

in the fractional quantum Hall effect.

One can also consider “vertex operators” : exp[iαφ(z)] : which, from their OPE with

T (z), are identified as primary fields with weights (α2/2, 0). This determines the decay

of their correlation functions, which, like all Gaussian model correlations, can also be

evaluated explicitly

〈: eiαφ(z) :: e−iαφ(w) :〉 = eα2〈φ(z)φ(w)〉 =1

(z − w)α2 . (3.173)

The first equality is (3.75) and the second equality has been obtained with (3.165).

51

Up to now, we have been silent on a parameter of the theory – the compactification

radius R. This is a parameter of the theory, and one can either fix it from certain

constraints on the vertex operators, or give it from the outset and then determine the

operators which are well-behaved. Single-valuedness of the vertex operators implies that

the fields φ(z) must be compactified with a compactification radius R (obey periodic

boundary conditions on a circle with radius R)

φ+ 2πR = φ , R = n/α . (3.174)

In general, the vertex operators : exp[iαφ(z)] : have weird commutation relations. We can

require, however, the object

Ψ†α(z) =: exp[iαφ(x)] : (3.175)

to obey fermionic anticommutation relations with Ψ(z) and with its antiholomorphic

counterparts Ψ†(z), Ψ(z), and to commute with the currents [40]

Ψ(z),Ψ†(z′) = δ(z − z′) , Ψ(z),Ψ(z′) = 0 ,

Ψ(z), Ψ†(z′) = Ψ(z), Ψ(z′) = 0 , (3.176)

[J(z),Ψ(z′)] = −δ(z − z′)Ψ(z) .

This imposes α = 1 for free fermions. : exp[iφ(z)] : then creates a (1, 0) state from the

vacuum. One can also prove that the current Jf (z) =: Ψ†(z)Ψ(z) : written as a fermion

bilinear is identical to the bosonic current Jb(z) = i∂φ(z) where the field φ is precisely

the one appearing in the exponential in (3.175), making the identity of the fermion and

boson representations complete.

The Kac-Moody generators Jm are extremely useful in classifying the excitations in

our model. The Hamiltonian is related to the stress-energy tensor through [x is the spatial

coordinate of the image of z on the cylinder]

H =1

2π

∫

[

T (x) + T (x)]

dx , T (x) =1

2: J(x)J(x) : +

1

24

(

2π

L

)2

. (3.177)

The constant shows that our model has a central charge c = 1. Putting together the mode

expansions (3.142), (3.168) and the exponential transform (3.154), and realizing that the

transformation to the cylinder generates an anomaly similar to (3.147) in : J(z)J(z) :, we

find the generators of the Virasoro algebra

2π

LLm =

1

2π

∫ ∞

0dx ei 2π

Lmx T (x) =

π

L

∞∑

n=−∞: JnJm−n : −δm,0

cπ

12L. (3.178)

The Lm satisfy the Virasoro algebra (3.143) with central charge c = 1 among them, and

[Ln, Jm] = −mJn+m (3.179)

with the generators of the Kac-Moody algebra. To every Kac-Moody algebra, there is an

associated Virasoro algebra, and the present construction of the Virasoro generators from

52

the Kac-Moody ones is due to Sugawara. Specializing (3.179) to n = 0 yields (taking only

one chiral component)

[H, Jm] = −2π

LmJm . (3.180)

showing that the Jm act as raising (m < 0) and lowering (m > 0) operators of a harmonic

spectrum. The spectrum is harmonic because of the linearized dispersion and the equal

k-spacing. Moreover, Eq. (3.170) implies that the state |0〉 is annihilated by the Virasoro

generators (3.178) with n > 0, and therefore qualifies as a highest-weight state.

The Jm can be used to algebraically generate this spectrum and its conformal tower

(family) of descendant states from a reference state |0〉. We suppose this state completely

filled up to some energy, call it Fermi energy, EF = 0. By applying the Jm with m < 0, we

make a particle-hole excitation with energy −m by raising a particle from below the Fermi

energy into an unoccupied state above, −m levels higher. The energy level structure of

the Hamiltonian carries over to the descendants created from the reference state |0〉

J−n1 . . . J−nk|0〉 6= 0 , 1 ≤ n1 ≤ . . . ≤ nk , (3.181)

as in Eq. (3.150) for the Virasoro generators. The level of the state (3.181) is∑k

i=1 ni,

(ni > 0), and the level associated with a single generator J−m is m (> 0). The energy

of the state equals its level in units of 2π/L. Of course, such a description is redundant:

a state at level N can be generated in P (N) ways; P (N) is the number of partitions of

N . At level N , we have an N-particle–N-hole excitation. The Kac-Moody algebra can

therefore be used to classify the particle-hole excitations from a reference state.

There are states which the currents cannot create from our Fermi sea |0〉: those with

additional particles, i.e. a total charge Q with respect to |0〉, and specifically the lowest-

energy states |Q〉 where the Q particles occupy the first Q states above the Fermi level.

We anticipate that there is an infinity of such states, and each of them will be the highest

weight state in the sector with total charge Q of the theory. From our discussion, it is

clear that the vertex operators (with α = 1 for a free theory)

Ψ†(z) =: exp[iφ(z)] : (3.182)

creates a chiral fermion. The chiral state |Q〉 then is created out of |0〉 by

|Q〉 =: exp[iQφ(z)] : |0〉 . (3.183)

The energy of a state |Q〉 is

E(Q) −E(0) = vFπQ2

L. (3.184)

Acting on |Q〉, the Kac-Moody generators J−m will again create the full spectrum of

particle-hole excitations in the sector |Q〉.There are more general operators than (3.182). One can build them by combining

fields of both chiralities, writing e.g.

Ψ†mn(z, z) =: exp

(

i[

αmnφ(z) + αmnφ(z)])

: . (3.185)

53

Its scaling dimension is (α2mn + α2

mn)/2, and α and α are related to the compactification

radius R by

αmn =1

2

(

m

R+nR

2

)

, αmn =1

2

(

m

R− nR

2

)

. (3.186)

Its physical meaning is quite clear. Increasing m means increasing the charge for both

chiralities Ψ†m0|Q, Q〉 = |Q+m, Q+m〉. Increasing n transfers charge from one chirality

to the other, i.e. creates a finite persistent current Ψ†0n|Q, Q〉 = |Q+ n, Q− n〉 [this is an

example of a primary operator with k(∞) 6= 0 in (3.162)]. Ψ†mn creates charge or current

excitations, or combinations thereof. As for Ψα(z), the particles making up these charge

and current excitations are fermions only at the particular compactification radius R = 1.

Else, they are more general objects.

The Luttinger or Gaussian model has operators with continuously varying exponents.

Responsible for this are dimension (1, 1) marginal operators which take the model along

a whole critical line. The simplest of these operators is

S ′ =g − 1

2π

∫

dz dz(∂zΦ)(∂zΦ) , (3.187)

which is proportional to the free action (3.164) and whose only effect is to introduce

the coupling constant g as a prefactor into S. The effect of this interaction can simply

be absorbed by redefining the fields φ → φ/√g. With this redefinition, the effective

α → α/√g in the vertex operators changes accordingly, and consequently both their

compactification radius and their conformal weight. When the compactification radius

R 6= 1, Ψ†α no longer describes a fermion but a more complicated object. In the Luttinger

model, the g2-interaction is such a marginal operator, coupling currents of both chiralities.

From Eq. (3.173) it is obvious then that S ′ generates continuously varying exponents in

the correlation functions, and varying g sweeps the model over a whole critical line.

By transforming the phase-field representation of the spinless Luttinger model 3.58

into an imaginary time (τ = it) action, one obtains the Gaussian model with an effective

coupling constant g = K. Importantly, the coupling constant g depends essentially on

g2. Finite g4 only renormalizes the effective g2 but, alone, is not able to give g 6= 1. This

is quite easy to understand because it only changes the Fermi velocity of the Luttinger

model and is therefore absorbed when going to the second spatial coordinate y = vτ .

More interesting is the case when the interactions are not of current-current type, or

when the theory is formulated on a lattice so that the identification of the conformal

operators is far from obvious. Mironov and Zabrodin have given a simple application of

the methods discussed above to interacting spinless fermions (or bosons) [74]

H =∫ L

0dx ∂xψ

†(x) ∂xψ(x) +g

2

∫ L

0dx dy ψ†(x) ψ†(y) V (x− y) ψ(y) φ(x) . (3.188)

V (x) is a repulsive pair interaction of rather general form. The density of particles is

n = N/L and kF = πn. The model can be solved by Bethe Ansatz for V (x) = δ(x) but

most of the results are expected to carry over for reasonable longer-range potentials.

From the finite-size scaling formula for the ground state energy (3.157), one finds

c = 1 which puts it in the Gaussian (Luttinger liquid) universality class. Now we want

54

to find the correlation function of some local operator O(x). To this end, one must

compute up to order 1/L the energy of the lowest excited state |ϕ〉 whose matrix element

〈0|O(x)|ϕ〉 6= 0 for L → ∞. Then, one can use Eq. (3.163) if its scaling dimension

and spin is known from (3.161) and (3.162). As an example, one can make particle-

hole excitations [ρ(x)] with momentum 2mπ/L (m small). From their excitation energies

linear in m, one can deduce the renormalized sound velocity v and ∆ = ±s = 1. Of

course, this is in agreement with our earlier discussion where we found that the currents

of the Gaussian model are (1, 0) or (0, 1) fields. Next, make an excitation at constant

particle number with k(∞)0n = 2nkF where the particle-hole spectrum goes to zero. In a

free system, this would correspond to applying the operator Ψ†0n to the Fermi sea. The

Bethe Ansatz gives the energy change δE0n = (2π/L)(2kFn2/v) and, using (3.161), the

scaling dimension ∆0n = 2kFn2/v. Comparing with (3.186), one finds a compactification

radius R2 = 2kF/v. One can also add pairs of particles or a single particle, where a

selection rule enforces half-integer n. The energy shift is given by (3.161) with a scaling

dimension (3.186) with m = 1, n = 1/2 and the R found above. The Green function

and the CDW correlation functions (corresponding to the low-energy excitation at 2kF

discussed before) are then

G(x) ∼ cos(kFx)x−1/2R2−R2/2 , RCDW (x) ∼ cos(2kFx)x−2R2

, R2 = 2kF/v = K .

(3.189)

The exponents satisfy the scaling relations of the spinless Luttinger model, and the corre-

lation exponent K has been identified in the last equality. (The factor 4 difference in R2

to Mironov and Zabrodin [74] must be due to a different prefactor [2/π] of the Gaussian

action.)

The close correspondence of conformal field theory and the operator approach to

bosonization should be apparent now, at least for the case c = 1 of the Luttinger and

Gaussian models. Density fluctuations (currents), charge and current excitations, and

fermion raising and lowering operators all appear either in an operator approach based

on a Hilbert space, or in an algebraic formalism based on the U(1)-Kac-Moody algebra,

which is satisfied by the currents as a consequence of the U(1)-gauge symmetry (3.9) cor-

responding to the conservation of left- and right-moving particles separately. The main

problem in the operator approach is the explicit identification of the coupling constant of

the Luttinger model which then determines all correlation functions. In conformal field

theory, we must determine the scaling dimensions of the various primary operators. As

will be discussed in the next chapter, in both cases the spectrum of low-lying eigenvalues

is sufficient for that purpose, showing once more the full equivalence between bosonization

and conformal field theory. Which one to use is a matter of taste.

The preceding analysis of the interacting spinless fermions foreshadows the application

of conformal field theory to rather general models of interacting electrons. We shall discuss

this topic in the next chapter, where some other methods for extracting the low-energy

physics will also be presented.

55

Chapter 4

The Luttinger Liquid

4.1 The conjecture

The Luttinger model can be solved exactly at any interaction strength, except for too

strong attraction where the model becomes unstable towards phase separation (forma-

tion of electron droplets; Section 5.3). However, it contains drastic approximations with

respect to a realistic many-body problem: (i) its dispersion is strictly linear, and (ii) the

electron-electron interaction is limited to forward scattering only. The possibility of an

exact solution is precisely related to these two approximations.

One may therefore wonder if these approximations are essential in the sense that the

Luttinger physics is lost in any different model or if, on the contrary, this physics is robust.

In this case, only parameters (Kν , vν) would be renormalized close to the Fermi surface,

but the structure of the low-energy theory would be identical to the Luttinger model.

Of course, further away from the Fermi surface, new phenomena such as boson-boson

interactions or lifetime effects could occur but it would be guaranteed that they fade

away as (k − kF , ω, T ) → 0. This is what happens in the Fermi liquid. The Luttinger

model would then represent the generic behaviour of gapless 1D quantum systems, and

one could build upon it the universal low-energy phenomenology for all 1D metals (the

Luttinger liquid) called for by the breakdown of the Fermi liquid in 1D (Chapter 2).

Haldane, in the early 1980’s, conjectured that this was indeed possible and supported

this conjecture with a series of case studies of models solvable by Bethe Ansatz [49, 75].

He also demonstrated that certain features mapped away when passing to the Luttinger

model, such as curvature in the dispersion, only introduce nonsingular, perturbative in-

teractions among the bosons [3] which disappear as one goes to the long-wavelength or

low-frequency limit. Haldane’s conjecture has meanwhile been verified in an impressive

number of instances some of which will be discussed below and, to my knowledge, no

counterexample has been discovered yet.

What is the content of this “Luttinger liquid conjecture”? Given any 1D model of cor-

related quantum particles (in 1D not even necessarily fermions) and let there be a branch

of gapless excitations: then the Luttinger model is the stable low-energy fixed point of the

original model (or at least its gapless degrees of freedom). In other words, the asymptotic

56

low-energy properties of the degree of freedom associated with this branch are described by

an effective (renormalized) Luttinger model, in particular with one renormalized Fermi

velocity vν and one renormalized effective coupling (stiffness) constant Kν , up to per-

turbative boson–boson interactions. All properties found for the Luttinger model: (i)

absence of fermionic quasi-particles in the vicinity of the Fermi surface, (ii) anomalous

dimensions of the fermion operators producing nonuniversal power-law correlations, (iii)

charge-spin separation, (iv) the universal relations among the nonuniversal exponents of

the correlation functions, among the velocities for sound, charge, and current excitations

and between velocities and the effective renormalized coupling constants, carry over to the

low-energy sector of the model under consideration. The nontrivial task remaining then is

to determine the two central quantities of the Luttinger liquid, the renormalized velocity

vν and the renormalized effective coupling constant Kν , from the original model. Once

this is achieved, one has an asymptotically exact solution of the 1D many-body problem.

This is what most of this chapter will be about.

A word of caution is required for systems with several degrees of freedom. If all

degrees of freedom remain gapless, the low-energy fixed point will be a Luttinger liquid

in the sense described. If some degrees of freedom become gapped while others do not,

the physics within the gapless degrees of freedom can be described as a Luttinger liquid

while all quantities involving gapped degrees of freedom will deviate qualitatively from

the Luttinger liquid. In Chapter 5, we will give examples for this kind of situation.

When mapping a more realistic model of interacting electrons in 1D onto the Luttinger

model, complications arise from two sources: (i) the dispersion of these models is not lin-

ear; (ii) the interactions generally do not only contain the forward scattering processes

included in, and solved by the Luttinger model but also the large momentum transfer

backward (spin exchange) and Umklapp scattering (for commensurate band filling) de-

picted in Fig. 3.3. Moreover if the interactions are not weak, states far from the Fermi

surface are coupled to the Fermi surface states; curvature and interaction could then con-

spire to invalidate the Luttinger liquid picture. That none of this in fact happens, was

demonstrated by Haldane [3, 49].

There are two basic ways of proceeding. One can start from a Luttinger model and

extend it by various interactions and other features, and then study the stability and

renormalization of the Luttinger model solution. The alternative is to start directly from

a realistic model of 1D correlated fermions, possibly on a lattice, and search for either

Luttinger liquid-correlations or the specific Luttinger liquid properties of the spectrum of

charge, current and sound excitations, Eq. (3.32). The organization of the chapter will

follow roughly this order.

57

4.2 Luttinger model with nonlinear dispersion – the

emergence of higher harmonics

Haldane extended the Luttinger Hamiltonian, Eqs. (3.1)–(3.4), by terms modelling non-

linear dispersion

εr(k) = vF (rk − kF )

→ vF (rk − kF ) +1

2m(rk − kF )2 +

λ

12m2vF(rk − kF )3 . (4.1)

The third order term is necessary to ensure stability, and λ > 3/4 is required then.

(4.1) can be bosonized, and one obtains quadratic terms of the usual structure (3.21),

with parameters renormalized by m and λ, but also cubic and quartic boson terms. The

quadratic form can be diagonalized as usual and the remaining terms are written as (for

spinless fermions for simplicity [3])

δH =∑

r

1

2π

∫ L

0dx :

1

6mΦ3

r(x) +λ

48m2vFΦ4

r(x) : , (4.2)

where the fields Φr(x) = [rΦρ(x) − Θρ(x)]/√

2 are given in terms of the phase fields of

Eqs. (3.42) and (3.43) and the tilde implies that the Bogoliubov transformed fields (3.50)

enter. δH describes boson-boson interactions. Their appearance is quite clear physically

because, for a curved dispersion, two fluctuations with wave vector q and q′ will have an

energy different from a single one with q + q′: fluctuations interact. Fortunately, δH is

harmless: one can either (i) argue, using renormalization group, that these higher order

boson terms are irrelevant and therefore do not influence the fixed point physics described

by the quadratic ones, or (ii) as did Haldane, perform a systematic 1/m-expansion to

find that the model still obeys the constitutive Luttinger liquid relations (3.32) between

velocities and coupling constant, and that the relation of K to the correlation function

exponents, Eqs. (3.85) – (3.100), also remains unchanged. Only the values of K and the

velocities change.

There is, however, another important effect caused by the nonlinear dispersion: the

appearance, in the physical fermion operators Ψ(x), of higher harmonics in the chiral

fermion operators Ψr(x) which generates components with 3kF , 5kF , . . . in the fermion

fields and with 4kF , 6kF , . . . in the pair fields. Consequently, the single-particle Green

function acquires components at 3kF , 5kF . . ., and e.g. the density-density correlations

get oscillations at 4kF , 6kF . . . in addition to the usual ones at small q and at 2kF . These

components are not present in the Luttinger model but may appear in any more general

model with nonlinear dispersion ε(k). They are necessary for constructing local density

and fermion operators.

This becomes apparent when one attempts to construct a representation for excitations

on all length scales from the long-wavelength ones which dominate the low-energy physics

[41]. Recall from our bosonization procedure in Section 3.2.2 that the field Φ(x) had a

kink of amplitude π at the location of each particle. The location of the lth particle then

58

is given by Φ(x) = lπ. When going from the smeared, long-wavelength density operators

ρr(x) to a physical local operator ρ(x), it is sufficient to multiply by a delta function∑

l δ[Φ(x) − lπ] to locate the individual particles. The local density then is written as

ρ(x) = [n + Ξ(x)]∞∑

m=−∞exp [2im Φ(x) + kFx] , (4.3)

where n = N/L is the average density, and the field Ξ(x) describes the long-wavelength

fluctuations. The fermion field essentially is the square-root

Ψ(x) ∼√

n + Ξ(x) exp [iΘ(x)]∞∑

m=−∞exp [(2m+ 1)i Φ(x) + kFx] , (4.4)

but the sum must contain only odd terms to ensure the anticommutation property. Θ(x)

and Φ(x) have been introduced in (3.42) and (3.43), and Ξ(x) commutes with Θ(x)

as [Θ(x),Ξ(x′)] = iδ(x − x′). Moreover, describing charge density fluctuations, Ξ(x) is

related to Φ(x) by ∂xΦ(x) = −π[n + Ξ(x)]. An equation equivalent to (4.4) for spin-

1/2 fermions can be constructed easily. The correlation exponents associated with these

higher harmonics are then deduced with the methods of Section 3.3 [3].

In the Luttinger model with its linear dispersion, only the components with m = 0, ±1

are present in (4.3) and those with m = −1, 0 in (4.4). This is related to the fact that

in the Luttinger model, the mean current is [from the continuity equation (3.106) for

q → 0] j = vjJ/L, and is strictly conserved because J is a good quantum number [3].

With δH [Eq. (4.2)] containing the nonlinearity, the current operator as determined from

the continuity equation contains higher-order boson terms, and a simple relation to the

quantum number J only obtains close to the Fermi surface. In order to allow for a

fermionic representation of this complex current operator, the physical fermions must

contain the higher harmonics in the chiral fermions.

4.3 Backward and Umklapp scattering

We now turn to the problem of non-Luttinger interactions. The Luttinger model includes

only the forward scattering interactions g2 and g4, Eqs. (3.3) and (3.4). This is certainly

very restrictive since any realistic model, say with an interaction

Hint =1

L

∑

k,k′,q,s,s′V (q)c†k+q,sc

†k′−q,s′ck′,s′ck,s (4.5)

will also contain components of V (q) with q large, specifically q ≈ 2kF . The restriction to

forward scattering is, however, absolutely essential in guaranteeing the exact solvability

of the Luttinger model.

In any realistic theory, these offending interactions will be there. The most important

processes are depicted in Figure 3.3. The contributions to the Hamiltonian are

H1⊥ = g1⊥∑

s

∫ L

0dx : Ψ†

+,s(x)Ψ−,s(x)Ψ†−,−s(x)Ψ+,−s(x) : (4.6)

59

=2g1⊥

(2πα)2

∫

dx cos[√

8Φσ(x)] , (4.7)

H3⊥ =g3⊥2

∑

s

∫ L

0dx : Ψ†

+,s(x)Ψ†+,−s(x)Ψ−,−s(x)Ψ−,s(x) + H.c. : (4.8)

=2g3⊥

(2πα)2

∫

dx cos[√

8Φρ(x)] . (4.9)

The first term represents exchange scattering of two counterpropagating particles with

opposite spin across the Fermi surface (momentum transfer ≈ 2kF ) and violates spin-

current conservation. [SU(2)-invariant backscattering would imply the presence of a g1‖-

term in the Hamiltonian which, after bosonization, can however be absorbed into g2ν →g2ν − g1‖/2.] The second term is Umklapp scattering of two particles moving in the same

direction. The product of four fermion fields in Eq. (4.8) contains a factor exp(4ikFx)

which, generally, oscillates rapidly and suppresses contributions from this term. For

half-filled bands, however, 4kF equals a reciprocal lattice vector ±2π/a, and Umklapp

scattering becomes important. Charge-spin separation is respected here. This is not

generic. However all purely electronic processes coupling charge and spin, i.e. arising

from four fermion operators, are less relevant than (4.6) and (4.8) [50].

For the Luttinger liquid phenomenology to survive one must demonstrate that, al-

though these interactions certainly renormalize velocities and stiffness constant, they do

not destroy the universal relations among them nor those between K and the correlation

function exponents. To map the low-energy physics onto a Luttinger model, one then has

to (i) check that there are (how many?) branches with gapless excitations; (ii) for each

branch determine the relevant renormalized velocity and coupling constant; (iii) insert

these into the Luttinger liquid expressions for the quantities of interest. If this works, it

is proven that the originally offending interactions are irrelevant at the Luttinger liquid

fixed point and that their only effect was a quantitative renormalization of the Luttinger

liquid parameters.

This is the spirit of all approaches to a Luttinger liquid description of interacting

1D electrons. It is most explicit in the renormalization group method if one accepts the

limitation to weak coupling, and we shall treat H1⊥ in this way. While more power-

ful mappings of lattice models onto the Tomonaga-Luttinger model are available now,

in conjunction with renormalization group, such “direct” extensions of the Tomonaga-

Luttinger model give a clear and simple idea of how the renormalized effective parameters

in the Luttinger liquid are generated. Moreover, many problems beyond the 1D electron-

electron-interaction models, such as coupling to phonons or scattering by impurities, only

become tractable with this approach. Also renormalization group allows to determine

corrections to the simple power-law decay (3.92) – (3.100) of correlation functions of the

Luttinger model which are absolutely essential to obtain a correct picture of the physics

of more complicated models. Finally, much of the early understanding of what is now

called “Luttinger liquid” was based on continuum models [18, 19], by that time most often

running under the label “g-ology”, and renormalization group was the most important

tool for their understanding.

We derive renormalization group equations for H1⊥ following a method described by

60

Chui and Lee [76]. There are other ways to formulate the renormalization group; they have

been reviewed in detail elsewhere [18, 19, 22]. First diagonalize the Luttinger part of Hσ

(shorthand for all terms containing σ-operators). Then compute the partition function

Zσ = 〈exp−βHσ〉 in the Matsubara formalism of imaginary times τ = it. Zσ can be

expanded in H1⊥ and the expectation value be evaluated with respect to the diagonal

part

Zσ =∑

n

1

(n!)2

(

g1⊥(2π)2

)2n∫

(

2n∏

i

d2r

α2

)

exp

2Kσ

∑

i>j

qiqj ln

(

| ri − rj |2α2

)

. (4.10)

The 2D vector r = (x, vστ) and qi = 1 for i = 1 . . . n and −1 else. Zσ is now identified

as the partition function of a classical 2D Coulomb gas with charges qi, at a fictitious

temperature βCG = 4Kσ and a fugacity g1⊥/(2π)2. For this problem Kosterlitz and

Thouless [77] derived a set of renormalization group equations which translate into

dKσ

dℓ= −1

2K2

σ

(

g1⊥πvσ

)2

,dg1⊥dℓ

= g1⊥(2 − 2Kσ) . (4.11)

They describe the flow of the effective coupling constants g1⊥ and Kσ, shown in Figure

4.1, when short-distance degrees of freedom (between α and αeℓ) are integrated out. Here

α is reinterpreted as a short-distance cutoff parameter which may be of the order of a

lattice constant. The coupling constants must be rescaled so as to maintain the Fermi

surface physics and the asymptotic correlations invariant. There are two different types

of flow. (i) Assume Kσ sufficiently large so that |g1⊥| decreases with increasing ℓ (lower

right part of Fig. 4.1). If this remains so even for ℓ → ∞, the renormalization group

trajectory will flow into a fixed point g⋆1⊥ = 0 and Kσ → K⋆

σ. g1⊥ has dropped out of

the problem, i.e. at long distances the model behaves effectively as a Luttinger model

with a renormalized K⋆σ. The fixed point is spin-rotation invariant if it turns out that

K⋆σ = 1. Then the flow is precisely along the separatrix. This is one example of a

Luttinger liquid. [Even then, during intermediate stages of the calculation, one may have

Kσ(ℓ) 6= 1; this apparent breaking and final restoration of SU(2)-invariance is typical of

abelian bosonization.] (ii) If the bare Kσ is not large enough compared to | g1⊥ |, Kσ will

flow towards 0 but more importantly | g1⊥ | will increase. Derived from a perturbation

expansion, the renormalization group manifestly looses its sense. It is clear that the

system flows away from the Luttinger liquid fixed line, and the diverging | g1⊥ | signals

an instability of the model towards a different ground state whose accurate description

must, however, be based on different methods. This regime will be the subject of Section

5.1.

So long as the system is not half-filled, the charge exponent Kρ is not renormalized.

At half-filling, the situation in the charge degrees of freedom is isomorphic to the spin

part discussed here. It is sufficient to change g1⊥ → g3⊥, Kσ → Kρ and carry over the

Equations (4.11). Also more complicated models where charge-spin coupling is impor-

tant can be treated in this way [50]. The application to phonons and impurities will be

discussed below.

61

The essential weakness of the renormalization group approach is its limitation to weak

coupling, being derived from perturbation expansions. This limitation has been overcome

by several methods which will be discussed in the subsequent sections.

Before, however, we discuss in more details the correlation functions of such a Luttinger

liquid where all non-Luttinger interactions have become irrelevant. A first idea about the

correlations is obtained by inserting the fixed point value K⋆ν into the correlation functions

of Section 3.3. This is the standard procedure in the renormalization group treatment of

critical points [70]. In particular, we would then find a degeneracy of exponents between

SDW and CDW, and SS and TS, no matter what the precise fixed point values K⋆ν .

Anticipating that the non-half-filled repulsive Hubbard model can be described, at least

for small U , by (3.1)+(4.6), it is clear that this cannot be the whole story.

Let us consider the 2kF -SDWz correlation function for definiteness. The SDWz-

operator is

O†SDWz

(x) =∑

s

sΨ†−,s(x)Ψ+,s(x) =

−iπα

exp[

2ikFx−√

2iΦρ(x)]

sin[√

2iΦσ(x)]

.

(4.12)

Now consider the time-ordered correlation function (again in imaginary-time formalism)

− RSDWz(r) =

⟨

TτOSDWz(r)O†

SDWz(0)

⟩

=1

Zσ

Tr

(

TτOSDWz(r)O†

SDWz(0) exp

[

∫ β→∞

0dτH(τ)

])

, (4.13)

where H = HLutt + H1⊥ and the trace (Tr) is performed over σ and ρ. The charge part

is trivial and gives the Luttinger result |r|−Kρ. In the spin part, use Wick’s theorem to

expand the exponential in H1⊥. This will generate nonvanishing contributions at all even

orders which are essentially those contained in the partition function Zσ multiplied by

OO†. In addition to these terms there will, however, be important new terms in odd

orders of H1⊥ not present in the partition sum [78, 79]. They arise from contracting the

σ-part of the SDWz-operators with H1⊥⟨

sin[

√

2KσΦσ(r)]

sin[

√

2KσΦσ(0)]

cos[

√

8KσΦσ(r1)]⟩

= −1

8

⟨

exp√

2Kσ [Φσ(r) + Φσ(0) − 2Φσ(r1)] + H.c.⟩

. (4.14)

These expectation values do not vanish because the prefactor of the Φσ-field in the cor-

relation function is half of that in the perturbation operator or, in other words, because

the Ψ†−,sΨ+,s-components of the SDWz-operator also occur as factors in H1⊥. In the

Coulomb gas language, this is equivalent to saying that one considers the screening of two

test charges q/2 by charges −q. The terms up to second order can be reexponentiated in

the spirit of a cumulant expansion. Now it is important to integrate up the correlation

function along the whole renormalization group trajectory [78, 79]. The spin-part of the

correlation function then becomes

R(σ)SDWz

(r;α) = exp

−Kσ ln|r|α

+∫ ℓ

0

g1⊥(ℓ′)

πvσdℓ′ +

1

2

∫ ℓ

0

[

g1⊥(ℓ′)

πvσ

]2

ln|r|αdℓ′

. (4.15)

62

If scaling goes to weak coupling, the integrals can be extended to infinity and the usual

expressions involving the fixed-point exponent K⋆σ follow. Notice, however, that an ulti-

mate cutoff is provided by the observation scale |r| (if not by temperature or system size)

so that the integration cannot go beyond ℓ⋆ = ln |r|/α. The correlation function then

decays as

RSDWz(r) =

(

|r|α

)−Kρ−K⋆σ

√

ln|r|α

, K⋆σ = 1 , (4.16)

where we have reintroduced the contribution from the charge density fluctuations. In

doing the integrals, we have used explicitly the fact that we scale along critical line

(the separatrix in Fig. 4.1) so that the logarithmic corrections only obtain in the spin-

rotation invariant case. In this case, one recovers expressions identical to (4.16) for the

x- and y-components of the SDW correlation function although, involving Θσ-fields, the

intermediate expressions are quite different. The charge density wave and superconducting

correlations decay as

RCDW (r) ∼ |r|−Kρ−1 ln−3/2 |r| , RSS(r) ∼ |r|−K−1ρ −1 ln−3/2 |r| , RTS(r) ∼ |r|−K−1

ρ −1 ln1/2 |r| .(4.17)

There is no logarithmic correction to the 4kF -CDW function because it does not involve

spin fluctuations. It is remarkable that at this level, the degeneracy of the CDW and SDW

correlation functions and between SS and TS is lifted: they have the same exponents,

correctly given by the Luttinger model but the correlations are logarithmically stronger

for SDW and TS. For repulsive interactions, magnetic correlations must dominate! If

we have attractive backscattering g1⊥ → −g1⊥ with Kσ left unchanged, CDW and SS

will be logarithmically enhanced over SDW and TS [just exchange the log-exponents in

(4.16) and (4.17)]. Finally, if spin-rotation invariance is broken and there is an easy plane

anisotropy, g1⊥ scales to zero faster. In this case, the integration along the trajectory

only gives prefactor corrections to the power-law correlations [79]. These results can

be transposed straightforwardly to commensurate systems when Umklapp scattering is

irrelevant [50].

The phase diagram in the g1⊥−Kρ-plane obtained in the absence of Umklapp scattering

is displayed in Figure 4.2. At g1⊥ > 0, the dominant divergences are SDW for Kρ < 1 and

TS for Kρ > 1. Subdominant fluctuations are indicated in parenthesis, and the preceding

discussion shows that CDW and SS have the same exponents as SDW and TS but are

disfavoured by their logarithmic corrections. We have assumed the system to be spin-

rotation invariant, and consequently, the fixed-point K⋆σ = 1. For g1⊥ < 0, a spin gap

opens through a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition, and formally K⋆σ = 0. Here, CDW and

SS have the strongest divergences for Kρ < 1 and Kρ > 1, respectively. They also diverge

in the regimes 1 ≤ Kρ ≤ 2 and 1/2 ≤ Kρ ≤ 1, respectively, though with a weaker power

than the dominant fluctuations.

Logarithmic corrections to the free energy of statistical models whose fermionic de-

scription contains a marginally irrelevant Umklapp operator and which are related to the

singularities found here in the correlation functions, had been discovered earlier by Black

and Emery [80].

63

4.4 Lattice models: Hubbard & Co.

A variety of nontrivial lattice models can be solved exactly in 1D, for which no exact

solution exists in higher dimension. A non-exhaustive list contains the Heisenberg model

[81], the Hubbard model [82, 83] and various long-range, supersymmetric or degenerate

extensions, the supersymmetric t − J-model [84]-[86], and others. Solvable continuum

models include, apart the Tomonaga-Luttinger model discussed above and the Luther-

Emery model reviewed in Section 5.1, the massive and massless Thirring model [87] and

the interacting Bose gas [88]. Exact solutions are due to a large extent to very strong

conservation laws arising from the restricted phase space for 1D fermions.

We briefly discuss some important lattice models. A central role is played by the

Hubbard model, and our treatment of Luttinger liquid correlations in lattice models will

be centered on this model. We therefore also present a short summary of important

Bethe-Ansatz results for this model to make this section more self-contained.

4.4.1 Models

The Hubbard model [82] is described by the Hamiltonian

HHub = −t∑

<i,j>s

c†i,scj,s +U

2

∑

i,s

(ni,s − 1/2)(ni,−s − 1/2) − µ∑

i,s

ni,s , (4.18)

where ci,s describes fermions with spin s in Wannier orbitals at site i, ni,s = c†i,sci,s, U is the

repulsion of two electrons on the same site and µ the chemical potential. One can also fix

the band filling to n = Nelectrons/Nsites. < i, j > restricts the sum to nearest neighbours.

This model is the simplest approximation for strongly correlated electrons in a crystal

lattice. The model is exactly solvable, cf. Section 4.4.2. For a long time, it was believed

that the Hubbard model describes the strong-coupling limit of the 1D Fermi liquid while

the Tomonaga-Luttinger model rather would represent the weak-coupling case. To show

that this is not the case, and that both are closely related, is a major purpose of Section

4.4.

Various more realistic extensions can be considered. In some cases, it is necessary

to add longer-range interactions between the electrons. The extended Hubbard model

[50, 89]

HEHM = HHub + V∑

i

nini+1 (4.19)

includes interactions between neighbouring sites, but one may obviously go to longer

interaction range [such as 1/r [90] or a Yukawa form exp(−r)/r]. In contrast to the

Hubbard model, this Hamiltonian is no longer exactly solvable. Also “off-diagonal” terms,

i.e. interactions coupling charge densities on site to those on bonds, can be added [91]-[96]

H = HHub +X∑

i,s

(

c†i=1,sci,s + H.c.)

(ni,−s + ni+1,−s) . (4.20)

An important feature here is the breaking of charge-conjugation symmetry generated

by X. This term goes beyond the zero-differential-overlap approximation. A critical

64

discussion of the approximations involved in going from a realistic correlation problem

to the Hubbard model in a 1D context has been given by Painelli and Girlando [92] and

Campbell et al. [94].

At U > 0 and half-filled band, the Hubbard model has an insulating ground state

whose spin fluctuations are described by an effective Heisenberg model [81] with an (an-

tiferromagnetic) exchange integral J = 4t2/U . For a nearly half-filled Hubbard model,

it is more convenient to think in terms of a few holes doped into such an antiferromag-

netic Heisenberg system. For large U , double occupancy of lattice sites is dynamically

forbidden, and the energy scales for charge fluctuations (∼ t) and for spin fluctuations

(∼ J ≪ t) are well separated. One can then simplify the problem by projecting out the

states in the Hilbert space involving double occupancies. In a restricted Hilbert space

containing only singly-occupied and empty sites, one finds in second order in t/U the

following Hamiltonian (t− J-model, [84]-[86])

Ht−J = −t∑

i

[

(1 − ni,−s)c†i,sci+1,s(1 − ni+1,−s) + H.c.

]

+ J∑

i

[

Si · Si+1 −1

4nini+1

]

.

(4.21)

The fermions ci,s now behave as spinless fermions, and Si =∑

s,s′ c†i,s(σ)s,s′ci,s′ are spin

operators. This model can be solved in two limits. For J = 0, it reduces to the U = ∞-

Hubbard model which describes free spinless fermions, and for J/t = 2, it possesses an

additional supersymmetry and can be solved by Bethe Ansatz [84]-[86]. The t− J-model

approximates the strong-coupling limit of the Hubbard model only for J ≪ t. Models

with other interactions or more bands can, however, be approximated in a low-energy

subspace by a t − J-model with sizable J [97]. Both the t − J and the Hubbard model

can be extended to include additional degeneracies [98]. Another interesting extension

consists in introducing longer-range hopping [99] or spin exchange. We shall not say much

on these variants here.

Most of the methods discussed below for extracting the Luttinger liquid parameters

from one of these models will work, with minor modifications, also for the others with sim-

ilar structure. When a model is not solvable by Bethe-Ansatz, numerical diagonalization

can provide similar information. We therefore limit our discussion as much as possible to

the quite generic case of the Hubbard model and only briefly discuss changes occurring

when passing to other systems. In the following section, we list some important elements

of the Bethe-Ansatz which are helpful for understanding the mapping onto the Luttinger

liquid.

4.4.2 Bethe Ansatz

The 1D Hubbard model has been solved exactly via Bethe Ansatz by Lieb and Wu [83]

(for pedagogical reviews on the Bethe Ansatz, see Sutherland [26], Korepin et al. [27],

Izyumov and Skryabin [28] or Nozieres [100]), and the ground state energy and some

thermodynamic quantities can be obtained [101]–[103]. Also the excitation spectrum of

some collective modes has been computed quite early [104, 105]. The basic physical

picture emerging from these initial studies is as follows. For U > 0, the system is metallic

65

whenever the band is not half-filled (Nelectrons 6= Nsites = L/a with lattice constant a):

the chemical potential for adding a particle to N - and N − 1-particle systems are equal.

Exactly at half-filling, one finds a difference (∼√U exp(−1/U) for U → 0 and ∼ U for

U → ∞ [83, 104]) between these two quantities indicating that the system has turned

into a Mott insulator for any U > 0. Finite U > 0 obviously prohibits double occupancy

of sites, all sites are now (singly) occupied and no low-energy charge excitations possible.

The lower Hubbard band is completely filled, and the upper Hubbard band is empty in

the ground state. The spins are coupled through an effective antiferromagnetic exchange

integral J = 4t2/U , and their dynamics reduces to a Heisenberg model.

At half-filling, the U < 0-sector is related to the U > 0 one by a particle-hole trans-

formation ci,s → (−1)ic†i,s for a single spin direction only, say s =↑, exchanging the role

of charge and spin degrees of freedom, and the charge gap discussed above turns into a

spin gap: occupying sites with two electrons with antiparallel spins is favoured. These

pairs are mobile and the charge excitations massless. There are no singular features in

the Bethe Ansatz for U < 0 as a function of band-filling implying that the picture applies

to the whole U < 0-sector [103].

These results can be obtained qualitatively, and for U/t≪ 1 also quantitatively, with

the renormalization group methods described in the preceding section. The coupling

constants are gi⊥ = Ua, i = 1, . . . , 4 (g3⊥ only occurs for half-filled bands), and the Fermi

velocity is vF = 2ta sin(kFa).

Bethe’s Ansatz provides a solution for all interaction strengths and band-fillings [83].

We sketch the principal ideas, following Nozieres [100]. The Bethe Ansatz relies on the

following facts. (i) Due to energy and momentum conservation, in 1D a two-particle

collision classically and quantum-mechanically conserves both momenta individually. The

particles then only can be exchanged or phase-shifted, and the two-particle wave-function

asymptotically (|x1 − x2| → ∞) obeys

Ψ(x1, x2) = aei(k1x1+k2x2) + bei(k1x2+k2x1) . (4.22)

The Bethe Ansatz postulates this behaviour for all distances between the particles. (ii)

A three-particle collision does not conserve individual momenta except if the scattering

matrix factorizes. This factorization implies another conservation law. For N particles,

one then has N conservation laws, expressed by k′i = ki. (iii) The Hilbert space of

the Hamiltonian separates in N ! quadrants each characterized by a permutation P of the

N particles, ordered in one quadrant as 1 ≤ x1 ≤ x2 ≤ . . . xN ≤ L. The N -particle

wave-function there becomes

Ψ(x1, . . . , xN) =∑

P

A[P ]eikPixi . (4.23)

Fermi or Bose statistics determines its continuation into the other sectors. (iv) The

amplitude A[P ] is determined by the conditions of continuity of Ψ as xi → xi+1 and

periodic boundary conditions Ψ(x1, . . . , xN ) = Ψ(x2, . . . , xN , x1 +L). The problem is the

computation of A[P ]. (v) Introducing spin, suppose we have N electrons, M of which

have spin ↓, on a lattice with L sites xi. One must then ensure that the factorization

66

of the S-matrix is not perturbed by the spin indices (Yang-Baxter conditions). There

is then a second permutation Q for the spin labels, and the wave function where the

M down-spins occupy the sites x1 . . . xM and the N −M up-spins the sites xM+1 . . . xN

is denoted by Ψ(x1, . . . , xM , xM+1, . . . , xN). The Bethe Ansatz postulates that in each

quadrant characterized by Q, i.e. 1 ≤ xQ1 ≤ xQ2 ≤ . . . xQN≤ L, the wave function is

given by [83]

Ψ(x1, . . . , xM , xM+1, . . . , xN ) =∑

P

A[Q,P ] exp

iN∑

j=1

kPjxQj

. (4.24)

The N numbers ki are determined from the coupled Lieb-Wu equations (u = U/4t)

2πIj = Lkj − 2M∑

β=1

arctan

(

sin kj − Λβ

u

)

, (4.25)

2πJα = 2N∑

j=1

arctan

(

Λα − sin kj

u

)

− 2M∑

β=1

arctan(

Λα − Λβ

2u

)

, (4.26)

Ij =

integer

half − odd − integerif M =

even

odd, (4.27)

Jα =

integer

half − odd − integerif N − M =

odd

even.

The total energy and momentum of the system are then

E = −2tN∑

i=1

cos ki , P =N∑

i=1

ki . (4.28)

Eqs. (4.24) – (4.28) give the exact energy and wavefunction of the 1D Hubbard

model. The quantum numbers ki are the momenta of the particles characterizing the

orbital degrees of freedom. Unlike for free particles, they are not equally spaced but

shifted by the presence of the other particles. The Λα are called rapidities and describe

the spin state. On the other hand, the integers or half-odd-integers Ii and Jα are equally

spaced. The ground state is obtained by occupying the levels with minimal |Ii| and

|Jα|. Therefore the distribution of qi = 2πIi/L and pα = 2πJα/L is given by a Fermi

distribution Θ(kF↑ +kF↓−qi) and Θ(kF↓−pα), respectively. In the absence of a magnetic

field, the ground state has kF↑ + kF↓ = 2kF and kF↓ = kF , so that the qi have a doubled

Fermi wavevector while the pα have the normal kF .

This splitting of the Fermi surface into two can be clarified further by studying the

elementary excitations. Two of them are obtained by making a hole either in the Ii- or in

the Jα-distribution. In the first case, one obtains a charged, spinless holon, in the second

case a neutral spin-1/2 spinon. Both holon and spinon live in the lower Hubbard band.

There are other solitonic excitations involving doubly occupied sites which therefore build

up the upper Hubbard band [106]. In general, holons and spinons are not independent,

and the Lieb-Wu equations (4.25), (4.26) imply that they interact. Introducing a real hole

will affect both channels. Moreover, the representation of physical electrons and holes in

terms of holons and spinons is not known to date.

67

The interaction of holons and spinons complicates the calculation of their dispersion.

Simple results are obtained only for weak or strong U . Then, the holons obey

ε(h)(q) =

4t cos(qa/2) − 2t cos(kFa) for u≪ 1

2t cos(qa) for u≫ 1. (4.29)

Their Fermi surface is at k(h)F = 2kF , ε

(h)F = −µ. The spinon have dispersion

ε(s)(q) =

2t[cos(qa) − cos(kFa)] for u≪ 1

(π/2)Jeff cos(qa/n) for u≫ 1. (4.30)

The effective exchange integral is

Jeff =4t2

U

(

n− sin(2πn)

2π

)

. (4.31)

The dispersion is only defined for q ≤ k(s)F = kF , and the energy becomes zero at kF . The

first feature translates the reduced Brillouin zone of the compressed Heisenberg chain,

and the second one implies that spinon-antispinon pairs can be created spontaneously.

The wavefunction (4.24) is not of much practical value due to its enormous complex-

ity: in fact, there are about N !2 expansion coefficients A[Q,P ]! In the calculation of

the wavefunction, there is no gain with respect to brute-force exact diagonalization. A

calculation of correlation functions, and especially of their asymptotic behaviour, based

on the Bethe Ansatz is therefore elusive.

Important simplifications occur in the limit U → ∞ [107]. The members on the left-

hand sides of Eqs. (4.25) and (4.26) are of order O(U0). For the equalities to hold, the

Λ on the right-hand sides must be proportional to u: Λα = 2uλα making the sin kj-terms

negligible. This simplifies the Lieb-Wu equations to

2πIj = Lkj + 2M∑

β=1

arctan (2λβ) , (4.32)

2πJα = 2N arctan (2λα) − 2M∑

β=1

arctan (λα − λβ) . (4.33)

The equations for kj and λα now decouple and can be solved successively. Concomitant

with this decoupling is a decoupling of the wave function (for the quadrant Q)

Ψ(x1, . . . , xM , xM+1, . . . , xN) = (−1)Q det[

eikixQj

]

Φ(y1, . . . , yM) (4.34)

into a charge and a spin part. det[...] is a Slater determinant involving only the particle

positions irrespective of their spin, i.e. describing free spinless fermions. Φ(y1, . . . , yM) is

the Bethe Ansatz wave function of a Heisenberg chain [81] of the N spins, characterized

through the positions of the M down-spins, on a compressed lattice of just N sites. This

decoupling of the wave function means a complete charge-spin separation over all energy

scales in the U → ∞-Hubbard model and is correct to O(1/u).

68

The wave function (4.34) can be evaluated numerically for much bigger systems than

(4.24) and, combined with either finite-size scaling or further analytical work, allows to

discuss the asymptotic low-energy properties and the critical exponents of correlation

functions. Applications will be discussed in the following section. We also note that there

is a systematic large-U expansion for the distribution functions of the momenta k and

rapidities Λ [108].

4.4.3 Low-energy properties of one-dimensional lattice models

In the first part of this section, we shall discuss various successful methods to derive the

correlation exponents of interacting electrons in 1D lattices, taking the Hubbard model

as an example. At the end, we briefly summarize the physical picture and then outline

the changes occurring when going to the variants introduced in Section 4.4.1.

Early studies of correlation functions heavily relied on numerical simulation of Hub-

bard and extended Hubbard models. Hirsch and Scalapino used quantum Monte Carlo

techniques to directly study the density and spin density correlation functions at various

band-fillings and interaction strengths on lattices of 20 – 40 sites at temperatures down

to about t/15 [109]. Of course, both the finite temperatures and the accuracy of the

simulations did not allow a determination of the correlation exponents and thus of Kρ,

but one main point of concern was the doubling of the wave vector of divergence in the

charge density response from 2kF to 4kF as interactions are increased and/or V is turned

on. This could be rephrased in terms of the present language as under what conditions

Kρ +1 < (>) 4Kρ i.e. Kρ < (>) 1/3 which marks the value where 2kF - and 4kF -responses

are equally divergent. Quite generally, it was found that increasing U decreases the 2kF -

CDW-correlations but somewhat increases the 4kF -CDW as U → ∞. The decrease at

2kF was less, however, if charge density fluctuations were measured on the bonds between

lattice sites (bond order wave, BOW) rather than on the lattice sites themselves. The

2kF -SDW correlations were enhanced by U . This is quite easy to understand physically:

U generates antiferromagnetic spin exchange but suppresses on-site charge fluctuations

while intersite fluctuations remain unaffected, at least at lowest order in U . On the other

hand, for U → ∞, the electrons behave as spinless fermions with a Peierls divergence

vector of 2k(s=0)F = 4k

(s=1/2)F . Adding a nearest-neighbour repulsion V strongly favours

the 4kF -CDW, especially on-site and in quarter-filled bands, also enhances the SDW and

further suppresses the 2kF -CDW: the energies due to both U and V are minimized when

the particles occupy every second site, i.e. forming a 4kF -CDW.

The suppression of the 2kF -CDW by U and V is interesting in view of the general

expression for the density correlations in a Luttinger liquid, Eqs. (3.92) and (3.102) which

imply that both exponents of divergence at 2kF and 4kF increase with decreasing Kρ and

thus with increasing U and V . The suppression of the 2kF -CDW then must be due to the

influence of U on its prefactor which must decrease as U increases. Hirsch and Scalapino

demonstrate this by showing that, at low enough temperature and various U , both SDW

and CDW diverge with the same exponent but that the scale where the asymptotic be-

haviour is observed, is vastly different and, in fact, very low for the CDWs [109]. A related

69

suppression of 2kF -CDW correlations due to the prefactor (with a concomitant enhance-

ment of SDW and BOW) can also demonstrated for a half-filled band in renormalization

group [78].

More extended results on the influence of band-filling and interaction range on the

competition of 2kF - and 4kF -CDWs have been produced by Mazumdar, Dixit, and Bloch

[110]. They also propose a qualitative but systematic picture predicting the appearance

of 2kF - or 4kF -CDWs, in terms of the contribution to the ground state wave function of

certain extreme symmetry broken configurations and the barriers to resonance between

them. Specifically, for the quarter-filled band, finite V is necessary to promote a 4kF -

CDW but an eventual second-neighbour repulsion V2 must be small: V2 < V/2. For

1/2 < n < 2/3, however, a new kind of defect-CDW with periodicity π/a is found

possible and competes with the 4kF one, depending on the precise values of the interaction

constants. Long-range interactions are necessary to stabilize a 4kF -CDW for n > 2/3,

and the generic CDW will be at 2kF . The competition between 2kF - and 4kF -CDWs

will reappear below in terms of the Luttinger parameter Kρ being smaller or larger than

1/3. For the special case of n = 1/2, electron-phonon coupling has also been included

recently [111]. Also, a more systematic theory for a Luttinger liquid floating on top of a

commensurate CDW, e.g. with qCDW = π/a, will be given at the end of this section [112].

Subsequent work rather turned attention to single-particle properties and to the ques-

tion of (non)-Fermi-liquid behaviour in the 1D Hubbard model. Several quantum Monte

Carlo studies indicated a finite jump in the momentum distribution function n(k) at kF ,

to be compared with the Luttinger prediction (3.86) [113]-[116]. Notice, however, that

Equation (3.86) applies to an infinite system. Finite size effects give n(k) a finite jump

at kF whose scaling is governed by the exponent α [57, 115]

∆n(kF ) = n(kF − π/L) − n(kF + π/L) ∼ L−α , (4.35)

subsequently identified in improved simulations [117]. The absence of any significant

rounding expected from the power-law behaviour in n(k), up to about 200 lattice sites

indicates, however, that the asymptotic Luttinger regime in the 1D Hubbard model is

confined to a tiny momentum slice around the Fermi surface, whose smallness, in fact,

remains surprising. (With reference to the different scales in different quantities, identi-

fied by Hirsch and Scalapino [109] and discussed above, this does not necessarily imply

that Luttinger liquid correlations in all other quantities are confined to such small mo-

mentum/energy scales.)

Sorella et al. also studied the divergences of the density and spin density correlation

functions of the 1D Hubbard model and could identify the different exponents from finite-

size scaling [117]. In particular, they were able to verify the scaling relations between

αCDW , αSDW , and α4kF, Eqs. (3.92) – (3.98), implied by their dependence upon Kρ alone

(Kσ = 1 for SU(2)-invariance), and they found an upper limit α = 1/8 as U → ∞,

implying Kρ ≥ 1/2.

These exponents can be determined exactly from the U → ∞ Bethe wave function

70

[107]. We study the momentum distribution function

n(k) = 〈c†kscks〉 =1

L

∑

j,l

〈c†jscls〉eik(j−l)a . (4.36)

At this stage, the real-space representation of the Bethe wave function can be used. In

order to transfer an electron from site l to j, we have to take out of the Slater determinant

one spinless fermion at l and reinsert it at j. At the same time, the spin configuration is

changed: we must take out of the Heisenberg chain the spin at l′, corresponding to the

electron at l (l 6= l′ because of the compressed lattice), and insert it again at j′ correspond-

ing to the new electron site j which can also be viewed as permuting neighbouring spins

successively between l′ and j′. Then, one has to sum over all configurations of the spin-

less fermions, as implied by the average 〈...〉 in (4.36) taken over the wavefunction (4.34).

The permutation of two neighbouring spins is mediated by the operator 2Si · Si+1 + 1/2

so that the evaluation of the spin contribution to n(k) requires calculation a correlation

function of j− l of these operators for each configuration of spinless fermions. The charge

contribution, on the other hand, is just the product of two Slater determinants.

Ogata and Shiba solved these functions numerically and obtained a function n(k)

characterized by a jump at kF and, surprisingly at that time, another weak singularity at

3kF , shown in Fig. 4.3. Both of these facts were somewhat surprising because the spinless

fermions’ n(k) jumps at 2kF which thus appeared a natural candidate for Fermi surface

of the U → ∞-Hubbard model. However, the electrons involved in n(k) both contain a

charge and a spin component, and the spins feed back into the charges by the kernel on the

right-hand side of (4.32). The (re-)appearance of kF and 3kF is due to oscillations with

wavevector ±2kF in the spin contribution to n(k). A careful finite-size-scaling analysis

showed that the apparent jump at kF would fade away as L→ ∞ and that the variation of

n(k) with system size was compatible with the Luttinger liquid power law (3.86) with an

exponent α ≈ 0.14. The 3kF -singularity was shown to be due an excitation of kF -fermions

to 3kF accompanied by creation of electron-hole pairs with -2kF , and is also required by

the picture of Section 4.2. They also studied the spin-spin correlation function at q = 2kF .

From the singularity observed as a function of q they inferred a decay in real space as

RSDW (x) ∼ cos(2kFx)x−1.44 while their results for the Heisenberg model were consistent

with the known form ∼ cos(πx) ln1/2(x)/x [79, 118].

An analytical evaluation of these quantities is also possible [119]-[121]. Parola and

Sorella started from an evaluation of the spin-spin correlation function [119]

< Sr · S0 >=r+1∑

j=2

P rSF (j)SH(j − 1) , (4.37)

where SH(j) is the (known) spin correlation function of the Heisenberg model and P rSF (j)

is the probability of finding j (spinless) particles between 0 and r with one at 0 and one at

r. The evaluation of this latter quantity is difficult but at least asymptotically possible,

and one finds

< Sr · S0 >≈ cos(2kF r)ln1/2 r

r3/2, (4.38)

71

which is consistent with the Luttinger liquid function (3.98) provided Kρ = 1/2. This

implies an exponent α = 1/8 for the momentum distribution function n(k) of the U = ∞-

Hubbard model at kF , in quite good agreement with the numerical data of Ogata and

Shiba. Parola and Sorella could recalculate analytically the momentum distribution,

following the procedure by Ogata and Shiba and, fixing two open parameters so as to

reproduce the behaviour at kF , were able to identify the exponent at 3kF as α3kF= 9/8

[120], a value also found by others [65, 122].

Anderson and Ren compute the correlation exponents of the Hubbard model in the

U → ∞-limit in a more physical way [122]. They observe that the Ogata-Shiba wave

function implies charge-spin separation only for those excitations which take place solely

in one channel. If we consider correlation functions of excitations affecting both channels,

phase shifts will arise in the distribution of the momenta ki due to changes in the

rapidity-distribution. This is due to the kernel on the right-hand side of Eq. (4.32), and

to the parity effects in the distributions of the quantum numbers Ii and Jα in the Lieb-

Wu equations, cf. (4.27). As an example, the Green function for the holon at +2kF is

G(h)(x, t) ∼ e2ikF x/(x − vρt) and involves only charge degrees of freedom: if one adds an

Ii to the system, the rapidities do not change. Removing a spinon at −kF , i.e. a Jα, there

is a phase shift of δ±2kF= π/2 of all holon momenta in the same direction. The spinon

Green function, which for the Heisenberg model is eikF x/√x− vσt, will therefore also

contain a contribution from the phase shift of the holons which reduces the overlap with

the “unshifted” ground state wave function. This introduces a factor (x± vρt)−(δ/2π)2 for

the phase shifts on each side of the momentum distribution. The 2kF -spin-spin correlation

function consists of a right-moving particle (spinon) and a left-moving hole (antispinon).

Each of them shifts the ki-distribution in the same direction, so that the total phase shift

is δ±2kF= π on each side. Putting everything together, we have

〈S(xt) · S(00)〉 =cos(2kFx)

(x− vσt)1/2(x + vσt)1/2(x− vρt)1/4(x+ vρt)1/4

= x−3/2 cos(2kFx) for t = 0 . (4.39)

The 4kF -CDW only involves a right-moving holon and a left-moving antiholon, and there-

fore is decoupled from the spins

〈O4kF(xt)O†

4kF(00)〉 =

cos(4kFx)

(x− vρt)(x + vρt). (4.40)

Other interesting examples are provided by the kF - and 3kF -pieces of the single-particle

Green function. Here, one has to take out (add) both a holon and a spinon. One can

take out the holon at 2kF and the spinon at −kF . The removal of the spinon shifts the

holon momenta by π/2 in the positive direction, and this phase shift cancels a quarter of

the 2π-shift caused by the holon removal at 2kF : δ2kF= 3π/2 while δ−2kF

= π/2. This

process determines the kF -component. One can, however, also take out the spinon at

+kF , and then the ensuing phase shift adds to that of the holon removal δ2kF= 5π/2.

This determines the 3kF -Green function. We have

GkF (3kF )(xt) =exp[i(2kF ± kF )x]

(x− vσt)1/2(x− vρt)(1∓1/4)2(x+ vρt)1/16. (4.41)

72

All these correlation functions agree with the Luttinger liquid expressions taken at Kρ =

1/2.

The removal or addition of spinons and holons can also be interpreted in terms of

the charge and current excitations of a Luttinger liquid in the charge and spin channels.

One can consider the 3kF -component of the Green function as being due to an additional

current excitation with momentum 2kF with respect to the kF -piece. Anderson and Ren

also prove that the correlation exponents of the Green function, which can be derived from

the kernels of the Lieb-Wu equations (4.25) and (4.26) [75], are precisely the Fermi-surface

phase shifts due to the insertion of an additional particle [122].

The applicability of these methods is, however, quite restricted: (i) there are many

models which cannot be solved exactly, and (ii) even if a Bethe Ansatz solution is available,

manageable simplifications generally only occur in special limits such as U → ∞ for the

Hubbard model. On the other hand, the notion of a Luttinger liquid is based on the

low-energy properties of a many-body problem, and a priori, a complete solution is not

required. Following Haldane [49] and Section 3.2.2, a Luttinger liquid can be identified

and its characteristic parameters determined by using only the low-energy spectrum of

the lattice Hamiltonian. These can be found reliably either from an exact solution or by

numerical diagonalization.

One general method is due to Efetov and Larkin [10] and Haldane [3, 49] where it

was formulated for a spinless fermion system, and then extended by Schulz [42, 48] for

models of S = 1/2-electrons. Here, one formulates an effective Luttinger Hamiltonian for

the low-energy physics and then identifies its parameters Kν , vν from the properties of the

exact solution. Central to this approach is the use of the relations between the correlation

exponents Kν and the renormalized velocities [49] vNν = vν/Kν , ; vJν = vνKν , Eq. (3.32).

To identify the Luttinger liquid one must, in principle, determine the three velocities

vν , vNν , and vJν per degree of freedom and check that they satisfy (3.32). Kν is then

obtained automatically. In practice, this programme is rarely carried out to this point

(with the notable exception of [75]). Rather, one assumes (3.32) to hold and determines

both vν and vNν which are sufficient to yield the remaining parameters Kν . vNρ = vρ/Kρ

is related to the compressibility κ by Eq. (3.62) κ−1 = L−1∂2E/∂n2 = πvNρ/2, and

the change of the ground state energy with particle density n can be readily determined

by Bethe Ansatz or numerical methods. A similar relation (3.62) for vNσ = vσ/Kσ to

the magnetic susceptibility can be explored in the spin sector. If the system is spin-

rotation invariant, Kσ = 1 and vσ is found. In the charge sector, vρ must be determined

independently from the low-energy spectrum of charge excitations. To identify which

type of excitations in the Bethe Ansatz is relevant, one can realize, as does Schulz [42],

from the boson representation (3.90) that the 4kF -CDW operator involves only charge

degrees of freedom and then argue that power-law decay of this correlation function must

originate from gapless excitations at that wavevector. These “particle-hole” excitations

have been known since a long time [105], and their velocity is

vρ = limp→0

ε(k0, p0)

p(k0, p0). (4.42)

73

Operationally, in the Bethe Ansatz wave function, take one particle with pseudo-momentum

k0 out of the filled (charge) pseudo-Fermi sea and put it into one of the empty states above

at pseudo-momentum p0. Find the energy ε(k0, p0) and (physical) momentum p(k0, p0)

associated with this excitation; then take the limit p → 0. This gives vρ, and Kρ is

then determined, too. Ultimately, the correlation exponent Kρ is fully determined by

thermodynamic properties [3, 10, 48, 49].

This procedure does not suffer from the limitations of perturbative renormalization

group and allows an exact calculation of the Luttinger liquid parameters. Being related

to properties of the eigenvalue spectrum, it can easily be adapted to numerical exact

diagonalization studies. One concern might be finite size effects because the numerical

solutions are confined to small systems. They are, however, not critical here since the

energies of the low-lying states usually converge rather quickly to the infinite system limit.

One can also apply conformal field theory methods to determine the correlation ex-

ponents of the Hubbard model. Conformal field theory, as we have sketched it in Section

3.6, requires a Lorentz-invariant system [29]. This is the case for spinless fermions (or

models of the same universality class) with only one branch of gapless excitations, and

has consequently been applied to such problems with great success [74]. The Hubbard

model and all other models in the universality class of a spin-1/2 Luttinger liquid are not

Lorentz-invariant because the spin and charge velocities vσ 6= vρ play the roles of two dif-

ferent velocities of light. Each channel ν taken by itself is conformally invariant, however,

described by a Virasoro algebra with central charge cν = 1. The complete theory is then

described by a semidirect product of these Virasoro algebras, and the scaling dimensions

of operators now depend, instead of a single coupling constant, on an N × N -matrix of

coupling constants, the “dressed charge matrix”, for an N -component system [123].

Frahm and Korepin have applied these methods to the 1D Hubbard model in order

to deduce the long-distance asymptotics of its correlation functions [124]. The idea is the

following: the elements of the dressed charge matrix

Z ≡(

Zcc Zcs

Zsc Zss

)

=

(

ξcc(k0) ξcs(Λ0)

ξsc(k0) ξss(Λ0)

)

(4.43)

(and, of course, the velocities of the gapless excitations vν) can be evaluated from the

Bethe Ansatz. Its entries ξ obey equations derived from and similar to the Lieb-Wu

equations (4.25), (4.26), with the limit L → ∞ taken. k0 and Λ0 are the cutoffs in the

distribution functions of the momenta and rapidities. The entries of the dressed charge

matrix are related to thermodynamic quantities of the model in much the same way as

the effective coupling constant of spinless fermions is. For example, Frahm and Korepin

find [124]

ξ2cc(k0) = πvρn

2κ (4.44)

where κ is the compressibility and n the charge density. Comparing (4.44) to (3.62),

we see that ξ2cc(k0) is essentially Kρ, up to a factor n2. This formula has been derived

independently by Kawakami and Yang [125], who use earlier Bethe Ansatz evaluations of

on the thermodynamic properties in order to get ξcc as a function of the system parameters.

These authors, however, neglect the off-diagonal elements of the dressed charge matrix.

74

In analogy to Section 3.6, conformal invariance then determines the scaling dimensions

of (primary and descendant) operators. The role of the coupling constant g of the Gaussian

model is now played by the matrix Z. ∆Nc(s) and Dc(s), later grouped into vectors ∆N

and D, count the charges (c) and spins (s) added by the field φ to the Bethe Ansatz

distribution and are (up to linear combination) the changes in the charge and current

excitations of the Luttinger model [126]. The ground state has ∆N = D = 0. Allowed

values of D depend on ∆N. For example, for a fermion operator c†±kF ,↑, ∆N = (1, 0),

D = (±1/2,∓1/2), for c†±kF ,↓, ∆N = (1, 1), D = (0,±1/2), and for the density operator

ρ, one has ∆N = 0. Numbers N±c(s) characterize descendent fields φ at level

∑

N±c(s).

Primary fields have N±c,s = 0, and finite values describe secondary fields. The correlation

functions of the primary and descendent fields φ∆± with scaling dimensions ∆± are given

by conformal field theory as

〈φ∆±(x, t)φ∆±(0, 0)〉 =exp[−2iDcPF,↑x] exp[−2i(Dc +Ds)PF,↓x]

(x− ivρt)2∆+c (x + ivρt)2∆−

c (x− ivσt)2∆+s (x+ ivσt)2∆−

s

(4.45)

which is a direct generalization of (3.163) to a two-component system.

As in Section 3.6, the central charge and the scaling dimensions can be obtained from

the finite size corrections to the energy of the ground state and the energies and momenta

of low-lying excited states of the system. For c = 1 in both the charge and spin channel,

(3.157) generalizes to

E0(L) − Lε0 = − π

6L(vρ + vσ) + O

(

1

L

)

, (4.46)

where the symbol O(1/L) stands for terms decaying faster than 1/L. E0 is the ground

state energy at size L, and ε0 is the energy density in the infinite system. Eq. (4.46) must

be verified by the solution. Eqs. (3.161) and (3.162) for energy and momentum of the

low-lying excitations are given by

E(∆N,D) − E0 =2π

L

[

vρ(∆+c + ∆−

c ) + vσ(∆+s + ∆−

s )]

+ O(

1

L

)

, (4.47)

P (∆N,D) − P0 =2π

L

(

∆+c − ∆−

c + ∆+s − ∆−

s

)

+ 2DcPF↑ + 2(Dc +Ds)PF↓ .

On the other hand, these quantities can be computed from the Bethe Ansatz (or numer-

ically) as

E(∆N,D) −E0 =2π

L

1

4∆NT · (Z−1)T · (diag[vρ, vσ]) · Z−1 · ∆N+ (4.48)

+ DT · Z · (diag[vρ, vσ]) · ZT · D + vρ(N+c +N−

c ) + vσ(N+s +N−

s )

+ O(

1

L

)

,

P (∆N,D)−P0 =2π

L

∆NT · D +N+c −N−

c +N+s −N−

s

+2DcPF,↑+2(Dc +Ds)PF,↓ .

Comparing Eqs. (4.48) to (4.47) one deduces the scaling dimensions

2∆±c (∆N,D) =

(

ZccDc + ZscDs ±Zss∆Nc − Zcs∆Ns

2 detZ

)2

+ 2N±c ,

2∆±s (∆N,D) =

(

ZcsDc + ZssDs ±Zcc∆Ns − Zsc∆Nc

2 detZ

)2

+ 2N±s . (4.49)

75

In order to obtain the correlation functions of the Hubbard model, on would have

to expand the physical operators O in terms of the conformal fields. This is usually

not possible. On the other hand, the quantum numbers of the intermediate states can be

determined from the representation of the operatorsO in terms of the electron creation and

annihilation operators. We have given examples above. Then, the complete asymptotic

behaviour of the correlation functions can be given in terms of the scaling dimensions and

thus in terms of the dressed charge matrix Z whose entries depend on U and the bandfilling

n. As an example, the first few terms of the complete density-density correlation function

are given by Frahm and Korepin [124] and, in the absence of a magnetic field, reduce to

Eqs. (3.91)–(3.93) when the appropriate Kρ is inserted there. In this way, the conformal

fields contributing to the density-density correlations are not explicitly identified. The

knowledge of their scaling dimensions is sufficient to determine their contribution to the

correlation function. Penc and Solyom have finally deduced explicit Tomonaga-Luttinger

coupling constants gi from the dressed charge matrix and the scaling dimensions of the

Hubbard model [126].

While the asymptotic correlation exponents agree with the approach by Schulz [42,

48] and Kawakami and Yang [125], there are some subtle differences. In general, in

the absence of magnetic fields, Z is not diagonal as naively expected for charge-spin

separation. However, one of the matrix elements Zcs = 0 and Zsc = Zcc/2 which gives

critical exponents identical to those for a charge-spin separating system as assumed by

Schulz. One can include an external magnetic field [127]. Then, there is no longer a simple

relation between the elements of Z, the exponents now differ from those derived under

the assumption of charge-spin separation, and charge and spin are strongly coupled. On

the other hand, the dressed charge matrix is probably not a good quantity to “measure”

charge-spin separation, because it does not change in any essential way in the limit U → ∞where we know [107] that the product form of the Bethe wavefunction implies complete

charge-spin separation.

The dependence of Kρ on U and n is shown in Fig. 4.4, and that of the velocities vν in

Fig. 4.5 [48]. For small U , the variation of Kρ with U is consistent with the perturbative

result Kρ ≈ 1 − U/πvF , and the slope varies with bandfilling due to the n-dependence of

the Fermi velocity vF = 2t sin(πn/2). At larger U , Kρ deviates from a straight line and

Kρ → 1/2 for U → ∞ for all n. Kρ = 1/2 is also the limit for n→ 0 for any U > 0 which

is quite obvious due to the n-dependence of vF . Also Kρ → 1/2 for n → 1, (U > 0), cf.

below. The velocities vν → vF for U → 0 as expected, and as U → ∞, vρ = 2t sin(πn)

and vσ = (2πt2/U)[1 − sin(2πn)/(2πn)]. While vρ ∝ n for all U and small n, vσ ∝ n2 for

U > 0 and ∝ n for U = 0.

These parameters can then be inserted into the results obtained in Section 3.3 to obtain

the correlation functions of the Hubbard model as a function of U and n. In particular,

for U → ∞, one obtains α → 1/8, αCDW,SDW → 1/2 and α4kF→ 0. The properties of

the charge degrees of freedom in this limit can be straightforwardly understood in terms

of spinless fermions, in agreement with the factorization of the Bethe wave function. E.g.

the 4kF -part of the density-density correlations is simply the 2kF -CDW of free spinless

fermions with a doubled Fermi wavevector. The large-U limit of vρ is simply the Fermi

76

velocity of free spinless fermions with a hopping integral t. Also close to half-filling even

at finite U , a spinless fermion picture applies: here one best thinks in terms of a few

holes doped into the insulating half-filled band, and the repulsion U is accounted for

by treating them as spinless fermions. When there are very few of them, their mutual

interaction will be negligible. This explains the value Kρ = 1/2 found for all U as n→ 1.

The spinless fermion picture also implies that the prefactor of the 2kF -part of the density-

density correlation function must vanish as U → ∞. More care has to be taken for spin

or single-particle correlations. The ground state of the Hubbard model can be viewed as

containing a number of holons appropriate to the doping level but no spinons. In this

way, it becomes clear that the characteristic wave vector for the SDW oscillations 2kF

shifts with doping due to the introduction of holes although in a local picture, there are no

configurations of parallel neighbouring spins [42]. The motion of holons disrupts the spin

correlations and therefore leads to a more rapid decay of the spin-spin correlations than in

the half-filled band or a Heisenberg antiferromagnet. Introducing a hole (or an electron)

creates, however, a holon at ±2kF and a spinon at ±kF , and therefore the single-particle

Green function oscillates with wavevectors kF , 3kF , etc.

The low-energy spectral function of the Hubbard model, obtained by inserting α =

1/8 for the limit U → ∞ into the Luttinger model, is shown in Fig. 3.6. It is clearly

dominated by the spectral weight between vσ and vρ, and the weight above/below ±vρ

is quite negligible. Comparison to functions of models with either charge-spin separation

or anomalous dimensions only, suggests that charge-spin separation is the dominant non-

Fermi-liquid feature in the 1D Hubbard model [53, 59, 60]. Even for infinite repulsion,

the anomalous correlations are quite weak. Physically, this implies that the power-laws

in the correlations are most sensitive to the range of the interaction, taken finite in the

Luttinger but zero in the Hubbard model, while the influence of short-range interactions

is strong on charge-spin separation. This allows to rationalize the small momentum range,

where Luttinger liquid behaviour is seen in n(k) in Figure 4.3. Unfortunately, no signature

of charge-spin separation has been detected in a Monte-Carlo simulation of the spectral

function directly of the Hubbard model [128]. This could be due to finite system size

and/or temperature, but certainly needs further study.

Correlation functions of the t− J-model behave in a similar manner and also identify

it as a Luttinger liquid [129, 130]. Specifically, at the supersymmetric point J/t = 2,

where the model is solvable by Bethe Ansatz, conformal field theory allows to derive the

dependence of Kρ on band-filling [129], in a similar manner as for the Hubbard model.

It obeys to the same limits as for the U > 0 Hubbard model 1 ≥ Kρ ≥ 1/2 but tends

towards the free value for the nearly empty band, while in this limit the Hubbard model

behaves as if U → ∞. On going away from the supersymmetric point, the model is

no longer solvable, and one has to turn to numerical diagonalization on small clusters

to obtain the correlation exponents [130]. Again, one uses Eq. (3.62) to obtain vρ/Kρ

and separately studies the spectrum of the charge excitations. While Kρ continues to

obey to the lower bound Kρ ≥ 1/2 (the equality holding for empty bands at J < 2t,

half-filled bands at J < 3.5t and at J = 0 for any filling), Kρ > 1 now occurs for

larger values of J . Eqs. (3.99) and (3.100) imply a region of dominant superconducting

77

fluctuations. According to the general scaling arguments above, logarithmic corrections

would favour the triplet type if the spins are massless, while opening of a spin gap would

make singlet superconductivity dominate. Evidence for a spin gap has been produced

by using variational wavefunctions, a procedure to be discussed below [131]. Imada and

Hatsugai also measured spin correlation functions in their Monte Carlo simulations [116].

While for small J/t, their results are quite close to those of the Hubbard model found by

Hirsch and Scalapino [109], the spin correlations become commensurate, i.e. peaked at

q = π/a rather than at 2kF as J increases. In this regime, the holes in the t − J-model

probably act as mobile defects in a short-range-ordered antiferromagnetic background.

Finally, in the large-J region (> 2 . . . 3.5t depending on n), phase separation occurs: here

the attraction due to the interaction terms in Eq. (4.21) is optimized at the expense of

the kinetic energy. The point J = 2t, n = 0 is possibly singular and Kρ there may depend

on the order of the limits.

The phase diagram and the Luttinger liquid correlations of the t− J-model have also

been established from variational wave functions [131, 132, 133]. This result is particularly

noteworthy because these functions can be generalized into higher dimensions where exact

solutions generally are not possible and numerical studies are severely limited by finite

size effects (Section 6.2). Recall that, on a technical level, a major problem in treating the

t− J-model with analytical methods, is the implementation of the constraint of excluded

double occupancy. This constraint is implemented, however, in a variational wave function

due to Gutzwiller [134]

|ΨG〉 =∏

i

(1 − ni↑ni↓)|FS〉 with |FS〉 =∏

|k|<kF

c†k↑c†k↓|0〉 , (4.50)

where |FS〉 is the filled Fermi sea and |0〉 the vacuum. This wave function yields rather

good energies but the correlation hole between two particles it contains is too short. The

momentum distribution has a sharp jump at kF but the spin correlations (at n = 1) are

pretty close to the exact ones for a Heisenberg chain [135]. To find a way to increase the

range of correlations, notice the following. |ΨG〉 provides an exact solution to spin chains

with an exchange integral falling off as J ∝ r−2 [136]. In the course of this solution, it

has been shown that |ΨG〉 can be rewritten as

|ΨG〉 =∑

det(eiqirj ) det(eipirj)∏

j

S−(rj)|FM〉 ∝∏

i<j

sin2[

π

L(ri − rj)

]

, (4.51)

where |FM〉 denotes the fully (up)- spin-polarized ferromagnetic chain and j labels the

sites of the overturned spins. The size of the correlation hole can now be increased simply

by increasing the power of the sines (Jastrow factor):

|ψν〉 =∏

all i<j

∣

∣

∣

∣

sin[

π

L(ri − rj)

]∣

∣

∣

∣

ν

|ψG〉 , (4.52)

where the notation under the product sign emphaised that in this product, the positions

enter irrespective of the particles’ spin direction. (|Ψν〉 is also related to the quantum

Hall effect as will be seen in Section 6.3). This can be seen quite explicitly from |ψν |2 =

78

∏

i<j exp(−Vij) with Vij ∝ −ν ln |zi − zj | and zi = exp(2πiri/L), which represents the

partition function of hard core objects with a logarithmic interaction [133]. It therefore

can serve as a natural starting point for a variational treatment of the t − J-model.

Correlation functions show power-law behaviour compatible with the Luttinger liquid

form, Section 3.3, whose exponents now depend on the optimal value of ν which is obtained

from variational Monte Carlo simulations. One can establish an explicit relation

Kρ =1

2ν + 1(4.53)

to the Luttinger exponent Kρ, and the numerical data are in good agreement. (4.53) can

be derived either by finding a solvable model whose ground state is given by |ψν〉. Kρ can

then be extracted from the spectrum of low-lying states exactly as for the Hubbard model

above [137]. Another possibility is to computed explicitly the momentum distribution

and then identify the exponent to Eq. (3.85) [138]. Finally, by applying increasing powers

of the Hamiltonian to |Ψν〉, one can obtain increasingly accurate approximations to the

exact ground state (provided that it is not orthogonal to the trial state |Ψν〉), and this

method has allowed to uncover evidence for the formation of a spin gap in a region of very

low carrier density and large J/t close to the phase separation instability. In this limit, the

system is a singlet superconductor. The resulting phase diagram is given in Figure 4.6,

where “attractive Luttinger” stands for dominant TS and “repulsive Luttinger” implies

dominant SDW correlations in a Luttinger liquid. The t− J-model can be generalized to

include a J ∝ r−2 exchange, and its solutions are quite close to the Gutzwiller-Jastrow

form discussed above.

One can also formulate Hubbard- and t − J-type models with long-range hopping

which, in the limit of half-filled band, reduce to the Haldane-Shastry spin chain [99].

These models are exactly solvable but the solution in general is not Jastrow form. Away

from half-filling, they have Luttinger liquid low-energy physics. One important element

of these models is chirality, i.e. the hopping term must be constructed in such a way that

the electronic dispersion contains only a single linear branch, corresponding to right-(or

left-) moving particles alone. In this situation, the only allowed effective interaction of the

electrons is of g4-type, Eq. (3.4), while g1 = g2 = g3 = 0. This still allows for charge-spin

separation because g4⊥ 6= 0 but the renormalized effective coupling constant Kρ = 1,

the value for free fermions. This is an interesting situation because all q- or ω-dependent

correlation functions will be indistinguishable from a Fermi liquid, still there are no quasi-

particle excitations. From the discussion in Sec. 3.3 one would conclude, e.g., that the

momentum distribution of such a model is a step function n(k) = Θ(kF − k) but the

spectral function ρ(q, ω) is purely incoherent with spectral weight between vσq and vρq

and square-root singularities at these frequencies.

At half-filling, the model exhibits a metal-insulator transition for U ≥ 2πt, as borne out

by a jump in the chemical potential at n = 1. How is this possible if Umklapp processes

are forbidden? As U → 2πt from below, the charge velocity diverges, corresponding to

a divergence of g4! At the same time, the compressibility goes to zero and the Drude

weight of the conductivity also diverges. This is due to the dispersion exhibiting a jump

79

discontinuity at the Brillouin zone boundary [99]. This is pretty opposite to the standard

scenario, where relevant Umklapp processes generate the Mott-Hubbard transition, the

charge velocity vanishes, and the Drude weight has a finite jump (Sec. 5.2). Here, the

compressibility diverges and the Drude weight vanishes. The properties of the model in the

charge sector therefore are peculiar and strongly affected by the pathological dispersion.

The spin fluctuations, on the other hand, are more normal with a strong peak in χ(T ) at

T ∼ J = 4t2/U , and the instantaneous spin-spin correlation function has a logarithmic

divergence at q = π, corresponding to 1/r-decay in space, as for the half-filled Hubbard

model.

A further example for application of these methods, especially Eq. (3.62), is provided

by the extended Hubbard model, Eq. (4.19). At half-filling, this model has been studied

by many methods both analytical and numerical [50, 139]. This model possesses a rich

phase diagram but, due to the importance of Umklapp scattering here, the system is

insulating when the interactions are repulsive [50, 139]. Correlation functions and the

identification of the phases as Luttinger liquids (eventually only in a single channel) have

been studied using renormalization group [50]. The physics away from half-filling is also

interesting. For U → ∞, we recover spinless fermions, and the model can be mapped

onto an anisotropic Heisenberg chain which again can be solved by Bethe Ansatz, so

that the correlation exponents can be deduced [140, 141]. For finite U , Mila, Zotos, and

Penc [142, 143] used numerical diagonalization combined with Eq. (3.62) to evaluate the

phase diagram and correlation functions of the quarter-filled band. The phase diagram

together with lines of constant Kρ in the positive U, V -region is given in Figure 4.7. On

a technical level, this study is noteworthy because it is one of the few instances where

the three velocities vNρ, vρ, and vJρ have been determined explicitly and their consistency

with the Luttinger liquid relations has been verified. For vJρ, one can use the relation of

the Drude weight of the conductivity (precisely 2vJρ) to the dependence of the ground

state energy on an external flux [43]

vJρ =π

2L

∂2E0(φ)

∂φ2

∣

∣

∣

∣

∣

φ=0

. (4.54)

At weak coupling, the system is a Luttinger liquid, and its correlations are described by

a parameter Kρ, indicated in Fig. 4.7 as dashed lines. This parameter can now become

smaller than 1/2, the U → ∞-limit of the Hubbard model. Due to the relevance of

Umklapp scattering terms which have a scaling dimension of 2 − 8Kρ, there is a lower

limit Kρ = 1/4 in the metallic phase. Beyond, the system goes insulating, and Kρ

discontinuously jumps to zero. The dominant correlations at weak-coupling are SDW

but 2kF -CDWs are only logarithmically weaker. For Kρ < 1/3, however, the divergence

of the 4kF -CDW correlations becomes stronger than the SDW one, indicating gradual

charge localization on alternating sites. In the insulating phase, this charge modulation

is long-range ordered, and the system can be viewed as a Wigner crystal. Fourth-order

processes in t still give an antiferromagnetic exchange interaction between occupied sites,

and a 2kF -SDW consequently is superposed on the 4kF -CDW. As one goes to larger V

(unphysical if one thinks in terms of electron-electron interaction alone but conceivable if

80

on-site phonons are included), the effective correlations get weaker, and Kρ can become

even larger than unity. If the system is still a Luttinger liquid in this range, it would be

dominated by triplet superconducting correlations before giving way to phase separation.

(The caveat is important, since a conclusive study of the properties of the spectrum of

the Hamiltonian on which the derivation of the Luttinger parameters is based, was not

possible [142, 143], and Mila et al. conjecture about a two-fluid picture where a Luttinger

liquid would coexist with a liquid of local singlet pairs.) A more complete diagram,

including attractive interactions is also available [143]. Here, one can find 2kF -CDWs, SS

when a spin gap opens, another TS when there is no spin gap, and a phase separation

regime when all interactions are attractive, as in the half-filled band (commensurability

is unimportant at this point). Most of these results agree with a similar study by Sano

and Ono [144] who, however, find evidence for a spin gap in the large-V –small-U region,

and who therefore would favour an SS phase preceding phase separation. Moreover, these

authors extend these results to a third-filled band (n = 2/3) where similar results obtain

except for strong repulsion. Here, no evidence for a transition to an insulating phase is

found. While the general absence of such a transition is somewhat surprising, the Umklapp

operators which could mediate such a transition are less relevant than at quarter-filling,

and the transition may have escaped detection because is expected to occur at stronger

coupling. Notice that for a third-filled band, 2kF = 4kF = π/3a (mod 2π/a), and that the

Umklapp operator couples charges and spins (Section 5.2). One thus predicts the opening

of a charge gap to be accompanied by opening of a spin gap. The competition of SDW

and TS at positive U and negative V , a situation that might be generated in two-band

models, has been studied in detail by Kuroki et al. who, however, find somewhat poor

agreement with renormalization group predictions even at weak coupling [145].

At general bandfilling n, the mapping onto a Heisenberg chain produces a finite mag-

netic field [140, 141]. Still, one can derive Luttinger parameters, and Kρ now can become

as small as 1/8 [49], allowing α to increase up to about 1.5. This confirms the earlier

statement that the correlation exponents are strongly sensitive to the interaction range.

A finite range is required to produce really strong correlations from strong interactions.

This is exemplified most dramatically by considering a long-range Coulomb potential

V (r) ≈ 1/r [90]. In a continuum system, the charge fluctuations no longer have a linear

spectrum at low q but rather go as ωρ(q) ≈√q2 ln q, so that formally vρ = 0. The spin

fluctuations behave normal. The logarithmic low-energy spectrum also gives a peculiar

dependence to the correlation functions involving density operators. The density-density

correlations decay as

〈ρ(x)ρ(0)〉 = A1 cos(2kFx)exp(−c

√ln x)

x+ A2 cos(4kFx) exp(−4c

√ln x) , (4.55)

i.e. slower than any power of x in its 4kF -component. Comparing to (3.92) and (3.93), one

formally would have Kρ = 0. The Green function behaves as G(x) ≈ exp(ikFx−c ln−3/2 x)

and decays faster than any power of x (formally α → ∞). The system is at the edge of

Wigner crystallization. It retains some marginal Luttinger liquid character because the

quantum version of the Mermin-Wagner theorem [146, 147] forbids a real phase transition

81

into a long-range ordered 1D crystal.

On the lattice, a systematic investigation of the effects of band-filling on the structure

of the ground state and thus the dominant CDW instability can be performed in the strong

coupling limit under quite general conditions of convexity for a long-range density-density

interaction [89, 148]. In particular, from the minimization of the electronic interaction

energy (i.e. in the atomic limit) one finds a series of generalized Wigner lattices as the

band-filling n is varied. For n = 1/m, one has every m-th site singly occupied with m− 1

empty sites in between. For n = 2/(2m + 1), the singly occupied sites are separated

alternatingly by m and m− 1 empty sites. Other configurations can be constructed with

a simple algorithm [89, 148]. As one dopes the system away from these rational band-

fillings, one introduces solitons with fractional charge q = ±ρe into the ground states.

These particles are mobile if the hopping integral t is finite, and they will experience an

effective interaction. They will form again a Luttinger liquid, and their effective velocities

vν and correlation exponent Kν can be calculated as a function of the filling factor (the

analysis is practical only for infinite interactions) [112].

4.5 Electron-phonon interaction and impurity scat-

tering

How stable is the Luttinger liquid with respect to electron-phonon coupling?

There are several models describing different aspects of this interaction. Coupling of

electrons to acoustic phonons is modelled by the Hamiltonian

HSSH = −∑

i,s

(t0 − αSSH[ui+1 − ui])(

c†i+1,sci,s + H.c.)

+∑

i

(

P 2i

2M+K

2[ui+1 − ui]

2

)

.

(4.56)

The electron-phonon coupling arises from the first-order modulation of the hopping in-

tegral by the relative displacements ui+1 − ui of two neighbouring sites. K is the spring

constant, Pi the momentum operator, and M the ion mass. Electron-electron interactions

can be added if required. This model has been proposed to describe the essential physics

of conducting polymers, and polyacetylene in particular, by Su, Schrieffer, and Heeger

(SSH) and most often has been studied close to half-filling [149, 150].

Electrons may also be coupled to intramolecular vibrations (optical phonons) which

modulate the energy levels εi of the lattice sites

HHol = −t0∑

i,s

(

c†i+1,sci,s + H.c.)

+∑

i

(

P 2i

2Mr+f

2Q2

i

)

+ g∑

i

Qini . (4.57)

This model is due to Holstein [151] and has played a central role in the polaron problem

[152]. Here, the phonons are dispersionless, the spring constant is called f , and g is the first

order coupling of a molecular energy level to a vibrational coordinate Q with an associated

reduced mass Mr. Another model somewhat intermediate between the SSH and Holstein

models, where the electrons couple to the librational motion of rings in a polymer chain,

82

has been introduced and discussed recently [153]. It combines dispersionless phonons

with coupling to the hopping integral t. Phonon dispersion and different structures of the

coupling terms lead to important differences in the physics of these models. Being not

central to the subject of this article, we shall not detail them here but rather emphasize

the common features of phonon-coupled Luttinger liquids.

Mean-field theory, the crudest form of an adiabatic approximation, does not lead to

Luttinger liquid behaviour [5]. Rather, a gap opens and CDW long-range order obtains.

Compatibility with the Mermin-Wagner theorem [146, 147] for incommensurate systems

is reestablished by the Goldstone mode, the sliding of the CDW, but this only gives a

gapless charge density excitation. The spins remain gapped, and the generic physics of

such models is discussed further in Section 5.1. For genuine Luttinger liquid behaviour,

one must therefore go beyond phonon mean-field theory and/or include electron-electron

interaction. Due to the importance of electron-phonon backscattering in 1D [5], we give

a brief discussion using renormalization group, directly extending Section 4.3 to include

electron-phonon interaction.

The generic electron-phonon coupling Hamiltonian has the boson representation [154]

H = He−p1 +He−p

2 , (4.58)

He−p1 =

γ1

πα

∫

dx

exp[√

2iΦρ(x)]

cos[√

2Φσ(x)]

ϕ2kF(x) + H.c.

, (4.59)

He−p2 =

γ2√L

∫

dx [ρ+(x) + ρ−(x)]ϕ0(x) . (4.60)

He−p1,2 describe electron-phonon backward and forward scattering. ϕ2kF

(x) is the 2kF -

component of the displacement field Qi or ui+1 −ui, scaled by√M , and ϕ0(x) the q ≈ 0-

component. ϕ0(x) is a real field, but ϕ2kF(x) is complex because the scattering processes

with ±2kF 6= π/a are physically different. The coupling constants are

γ(SSH)1 = 4iαSSH sin(kFa) , γ

(SSH)2 = 0 ; γ

(Hol)1 = γ

(Hol)2 = g . (4.61)

The vanishing of γ2 for acoustic phonons only holds at q = 0 and is a consequence of

the linear dispersion in the centre of the Brillouin zone. The influence of the finite-q

contribution is of order (vs/vρ)2 where vs is the sound velocity of the phonons, and can

be neglected in most realistic situations [155]. This may perhaps not be permitted close

to a Mott transition where vρ ≪ vF and may become comparable to vs [156].

Electron-phonon forward scattering in a Luttinger model can be diagonalized exactly

[155]. Equivalent results are obtained by including it into the renormalization group.

First, we integrate out the phonons to generate effective, retarded electron-electron inter-

actions (in imaginary time formalism)

Heff1 (τ − τ ′) = 2

(

|γ1|2πα

)2∫

dx∫

dx′D0(x− x, τ − τ ′) exp(√

2i [Φρ(x, τ) − Φρ(x′, τ ′)])

×∑

r

cos(√

2 [Φσ(x, τ) + rΦσ(x′, τ ′)])

+ H.c. , (4.62)

Heff2 (τ − τ ′) = γ2

2

∫

dx∫

dx′∑

r,r′ρr(x, τ)D0(x− x′, τ − τ ′)ρr′(x

′, τ ′) (4.63)

83

with the bare phonon propagator

D0(x, τ) =1

2ωphδ(x) exp (−ωph|τ |) . (4.64)

When deriving scaling equations for the effective coupling constants, α is interpreted as

a cutoff which is also extended to the τ -direction (Section 4.3). In order not to loose the

short-time contributions which are important at high phonon frequencies ωph, one must

integrate the effective retarded interactions between τ − τ ′ = 0 and α/vF , giving effective

instantaneous interactions, plus (4.62) and (4.63) with a cutoff α/vF in τ [157]. The

instantaneous interactions are added to the electronic terms, and the retarded pieces are

included into the renormalization group. Following Section 4.3, we obtain the following

set of scaling equations [154, 157]

dK−1ρ

dℓ=

1

2

vρ

vσ

(

Y(ph)1 − Y

(ph)2

)

D(ℓ) ,

dK−1σ

dℓ=

1

2

(

Y 2σ + Y

(ph)1 D(ℓ)

)

,

dYσ

dℓ= Yσ (2 − 2Kσ) − Y

(ph)1 D(ℓ) , (4.65)

dY(ph)1

dℓ= Y

(ph)1 (3 −Kρ −Kσ − Yσ) ,

dY(ph)2

dℓ= Y

(ph)2 ,

dvν

dℓ=

1

2vνKν

(

Y(ph)1 − Y

(ph)2

)

D(ℓ) .

The abbreviations are

Yσ =g1⊥πvσ

, Y(ph)1 =

|γ1|2πvσω2

ph

, D =α0ωph

vσexp

(

−α(ℓ)ωph

vσ

)

. (4.66)

Y(ph)2 = Y

(ph)1 for dispersionless modes, and zero (for the present purposes) for acoustic

modes.

A few important points are immediately apparent. (i) The phonon frequency ωph,

through D(ℓ), is the decisive quantity controlling the interplay of repulsive electron-

electron and attractive electron-phonon interactions. At a scale ℓph = ln(EF/ωph), all

retardation effects are scaled out, and the model behaves (and eventually continues to

renormalize) as effectively instantaneous. The influence of electron-phonon interaction

is the stronger the lower ωph. (ii) The charge degrees of freedom remain gapless for any

nonvanishing phonon frequency. While Kρ rather strongly decreases for acoustic phonons,

its sense of renormalization for dispersionless modes depends on the relative importance

of forward and backward scattering. The intial Kρ(ℓ = 0) contains a contribution from

the short-time part of D0, as discussed above. (iii) A gap may open in the spin fluc-

tuations, and in fact does so for low enough phonon frequency and / or high enough

electron-phonon coupling. The system then is no longer a Luttinger liquid and its physics

84

will be discussed in more detail in Section 5.1. Here SS or CDW correlations dominate,

depending on Kρ [157, 158]. (iv) In the opposite limit of high phonon frequency and/or

weak coupling, there is a Luttinger liquid regime. Depending on the renormalized Kρ,

we have SDW or TS correlations. The properties at low energies, below ωph, are then

given by the Luttinger liquid correlations (Section 3.3) with the fixed-point values K⋆ρ

and v⋆ν . The scaling equations respecting spin-rotation invariance, K⋆

σ = 1 is guaranteed

for gapless spin fluctuations. At energies above ωph, there will be deviations from the

Luttinger liquid properties. An example, the Holstein contribution to the optical conduc-

tivity, involving phonon emission, will be discussed in the next section [159]. Corrections

to the spectral functions of a model with forward scattering only [155, 156], have also been

evaluated [160]. (v) The velocities vν of the charge and spin fluctuations are renormalized

by electron-phonon interaction. Consequently, this interaction has a pronounced influence

on the thermodynamic properties such as specific heat, compressibility and susceptibility

[159]. It is analogous to the enhancement of the effective mass, or the density of states at

the Fermi level, familiar from higher-dimensional systems. In contrast to higher dimen-

sions, the electron-phonon interaction couples charge and spin fluctuations and therefore

strongly renormalizes the magnetic properties of the Luttinger liquid.

Renormalization group is also very useful to study the influence of impurity scattering

on the low-energy properties of Luttinger liquids [161, 162]. The forward (q ≈ 0) and

backward (q ≈ 2kF ) electron-impurity scattering components can be represented by two

Gaussian fields η(x) and ξ(x) with white noise correlations Pξ = exp[−D−1ξ

∫ |ξ(x)|2dx]

and a similar expression for Pη [163]. Dη(ξ) = vF/τη(ξ) and τ is the scattering time. The

interaction Hamiltonian is

Hf =∑

rs

∫

dx η(x)Ψ†rs(x)Ψrs(x) = −

√2

π

∫

dx η(x)∂Φρ(x)

∂x(4.67)

Hb =∑

s

∫

dx[

ξ(x)Ψ†+s(x)Ψ−s(x) + ξ⋆(x)Ψ†

−s(x)Ψ+s(x)]

=1

πα

∫

dx

ξ(x)ei[√

2Φρ(x)+2kF x] cos[√

2Φσ(x)] + H.c.

. (4.68)

This Hamiltonian is of the same structure as the electron-phonon interaction (4.59) and

(4.60) except that η(x) and ξ(x) are static fields while ϕ0(x) and ϕ2kF(x) posses dynamics.

The renormalization group treatment therefore is parallel to the phonon problem up to

two differences: (i) the “phonon frequency” ωph = 0 here to reflect the static nature of the

impurity fields; (ii) for the same reason, forward scattering can be completely eliminated

by simply shifting

Φρ(x) → Φρ(x) = Φρ(x) −√

2Kρ

vρ

∫ x

dz η(z) (4.69)

and completing the square. More importantly, if one uses the replica trick to treat

backscattering, the resulting action only contains differences of Φρ-fields so that they

are not affected by the shift (4.69). Also unaffected by this shift are the Πρ(x)- and

Θρ-fields because they are generated from Φρ by time derivatives. This immediately im-

plies that both the conductivity and the pairing fluctuations (SS and TS) are unaffected

85

by electron-impurity forward scattering. The charge and spin density wave correlation

functions, on the other hand will decay exponentially with distance

RCDW,SDW (x, t) = e−Dη(

Kρvρ

)2|x|RCDW,SDW (x, t) |η≡0 . (4.70)

Decay with time is not affected.

Also the influence of electron-impurity backscattering ξ(x) is dramatic. The renor-

malization group equations (4.65) can be taken over directly [161] with the phonon Ddropped, Y

(ph)2 = 0, and Y

(ph)1 is replaced by a new

D =2Dξα

πv2σ

(

vσ

vρ

)Kρ

. (4.71)

The scaling dimension of the impurity backscattering operator D is 3 − Kρ − K⋆σ and

determines its (ir)relevance in the limit D, Yσ → 0 where mutual renormalization effects

can be neglected [162]. D goes relevant except for Kρ > 2 for a SU(2)-invariant system

(K⋆σ = 1) and for Kρ > 3 for a spin-gapped system (K⋆

σ = 0): disorder is always relevant

except deep in the superconducting region, and more so for a triplet superconductor

than for a singlet one. The fact that even weak disorder becomes relevant for weak

superconducting correlations (1 < Kρ < 2) shows that Anderson’s theorem [164] fails

in 1D. A Luttinger liquid only occurs when the coupling constants of the pure system

were such that it is strongly TS (K⋆ρ ≥ 2 required), and TS correlations then continue

to dominate. Disorder can also be irrelevant when a spin gap opens (Yσ → −∞) with

SS correlations strongest, but very large K⋆ρ ≥ 3 is called for here. In all other cases,

both D and −Yσ flow to infinity. Disorder is relevant, and localization occurs. Moreover,

one always has a spin gap, and the physics then is best described as a CDW (K⋆ρ = 0)

pinned by impurities [165] (charge density glass). For strong enough repulsion between

the electrons, one would however expect localization in the presence of antiferromagnetic

correlations. Such a random antiferromagnet is, in fact, conjectured by Giamarchi and

Schulz [161] and their failure to find it identified as an artefact of the development leading

to the renormalization group equations. The main features of the RG equations can also

be rationalized by realizing that the impurity backscattering operator linearly couples

to the CDW-operator (3.89) while the other types of fluctuations (SDW, SS, TS) are

only influenced in higher order. It is therefore clear, that the charge density glass phase

descending from CDWs strongly extends in the phase diagram.

The influence of impurities and electron-phonon scattering on transport is a subject

of the following section.

4.6 Transport in Luttinger liquids

4.6.1 Electron-electron scattering

In the presence of band curvature and in lattice models, the Hamiltonian does not com-

mute with the current which no longer is proportional to the momentum, and nonvanishing

86

conductivity at finite frequencies is possible. There are several processes contributing. The

most obvious ones are Umklapp processes whereby n electrons are transferred from one

side of the Fermi surface to the other, carrying with them momentum of the order ±2nkF .

These processes are possible at low energy only in commensurate systems where the Fermi

wave vector has a rational relation to a reciprocal lattice vector G: kF = (m/n)G. Away

from these commensurate band-fillings they involve states separated from the Fermi level

by a finite energy gap ∆m/n and will therefore contribute to the conductivity only at

frequencies or temperatures above ∆m/n [44, 45]. These issues will be discussed further

in Section 5.2. Another contribution comes from band curvature. In the presence of

interactions, band curvature will also renormalize the current operator [3, 45].

Band curvature in an incommensurate system adds a term (4.2) to the Luttinger

Hamiltonian (3.1). The current operator is given by Eq. (3.67), and its commutator with

the Hamiltonian for small q reduces to

limq→0

[H, j(q)] =λ

48m2vF+ . . . (4.72)

Then, using Eq. (3.68), one obtains at T = 0

σ(ω > 0) =1

8π

(

λ

12m2vF

)2 Kρ −K−1ρ

4v3ρ

ω3 + . . . (4.73)

i.e. a universal (interaction-independent) ω3-law [45]. This result is essentially perturba-

tive in the band-curvature. Both for Kρ → 1 (noninteracting electrons) and λ/m2 → 0

[free electrons with k2/2m-dispersion, i.e. Galilei invariance (λ → 0)], or Lorentz in-

variance (m → ∞)] the finite frequency contribution disappears, as it must according to

Chapter 3. A direct calculation of the temperature dependence of the dc-conductivity is

not possible, but Giamarchi and Millis [45] give arguments for a divergence faster than

any power of 1/T as T → 0.

In these calculations, there is no mechanism for dissipation. Ogata and Anderson

argue that special boundary conditions must be used in order to allow for dissipative

effects [166]. Further neglecting vertex corrections, they find that the dc-resistivity and

conductivity vary as

ρ(T ) =1

σ(T )∼ T 1−2α (4.74)

where α is the single-particle exponent. For α ≪ 1 as we have in the 1D Hubbard model

the resistivity varies nearly linearly with temperature. This behaviour should be closer

to real systems than the Hamiltonian-based calculations outlined before. The frequency

dependence then is determined by a relaxation rate linear in ω:

σ(ω) ∼ ω2α

iω + ω tan πα. (4.75)

That the optical conductivity in real materials could essentially probe the density of states

and thus depend on powers of α had also been conjectured earlier [167].

87

Finally, some information can also be obtained by other methods. Carmelo and Horsch

[168] calculate the weight of the δ(ω)-peak in the conductivity of the 1D Hubbard model

directly from the Bethe-Ansatz wave function and provide an interpretation from the

Landau-Luttinger-liquid point-of-view (Section 4.7).

Obviously, while electron-electron scattering is one conduction-limiting mechanism,

experiments often probe other influences: scattering off impurities and phonons. Much

work has been done on the impurity problem, less on electron-phonon scattering, and we

start with the former.

4.6.2 Electron-impurity scattering

We shall proceed in two steps: (i) a single (or double) impurity and (ii) a system containing

a finite concentration of impurities.

If we consider a single impurity in a Luttinger liquid, it is convenient to compute the

conductance G rather than the conductivity σ of the system. The conductance is defined

on a sample of finite dimensions by G = 1/R in terms of the resistance, and related

macroscopically to the conductivity σ = 1/ρ by G = σA/L where A is the cross section

(= 1 in our 1D problems) and L the length of the system. Microscopically, G can be

computed via a Kubo formula [169]

G = limω→0

1

hLω

∫ L

0dx∫

dτeiωτ 〈Tτ J(xτ)J(00)〉 . (4.76)

For reference, one can evaluate this expression for the impurity-free Luttinger liquid and

finds

G = nKρe2

h, (4.77)

where h = 2πh and n is the number of channels (n = 2 for spin-1/2 electrons). This

result has been found earlier by Apel and Rice [170]. Notice that in contrast to σ, G is

renormalized by the electron-electron interactions. At first sight, this is not surprising

since the finite length breaks the translational invariance of the system which is the basis of

the independence of σ of electronic interactions. On the other hand, G can also be defined

for L → ∞ and then gives a results different from the Drude weight in the conductivity.

It thus appears that the limit L→ ∞ and the process of turning on the electron-electron

interaction do not commute.

We now include a single or double impurity, mainly following Kane and Fisher [169].

Equivalent results have been obtained by Furusaki and Nagaosa [171]. For simplicity, we

restrict ourselves to spinless fermions (n = 1, Kρ → K). There are two complementary

starting points: a weak impurity where perturbation theory in the impurity potential

works, and a strong impurity which can be viewed as two weakly connected semi-infinite

Luttinger liquids. In the first case, the Hamiltonian for an impurity at x = 0 is

δH =∫

dx V (x) Ψ†(x)Ψ(x) (4.78)

with V (x) strongly peaked around x = 0. The action for its dominant contribution,

backscattering of m electrons across the Fermi surface, i.e. transferring momentum

88

±2mkF , is

δS ≈∞∑

m=−∞

vm

2

∫

dτei2mΦ(x=0,τ) . (4.79)

vm is the Fourier transform of V (x) at 2mkF . Here, we have included the higher harmonics

from Ψ(x) which occur in the Luttinger liquid (Section 4.2). The weak link, on the other

hand, can be modelled by a hopping Hamiltonian

δH ≈ −t[

Ψ†l (x = 0)Ψr(x = 0) + H.c.

]

. (4.80)

Now one traces over the degrees of freedom away from the impurity (x 6= 0) to obtain

an effective action for x = 0 only. This can then be used to compute the conductance

through the impurity. To this end, one derives renormalization group equations for vm or

tmdvm

dℓ=(

1 −m2K)

vm ,dtmdℓ

=

(

1 − m2

K

)

tm . (4.81)

For repulsive interactions K < 1, the most relevant backscattering term v1 increases

under scaling, i.e. an initially weak impurity behaves effectively as a strong one. This

qualitative conclusion is supported by the strong-coupling limit where t1 (and all higher

tm) is irrelevant, i.e. the two Luttinger liquids are effectively isolated. The impurity

thus produces total reflection for repulsive interactions. On the other hand, for attractive

interactions, K > 1, all vm are irrelevant and at least t1 is relevant, i.e. the impurity allows

for total transmission. At the fixed point, in the former case the resulting conductance is

G = 0, in the latter one has the ideal Luttinger liquid conductance G = Ke2/h.

When temperature T , frequency ω, or voltage V are finite, they provide an effective

cutoff to the renormalization group flow and produce power-law corrections to the fixed

point conductances. One finds [with Ω = max(ω, T, V ) and n = 1 for spinless fermions]

G(Ω) =e2

h

[

K −∞∑

m=1

amΩ | vm |2 Ω2(m2K−1)

]

. (4.82)

The expansion coefficients amΩ are nonuniversal but their ratios are universal. Power-laws

similar to the second terms on the right-hand side may be derived for transport through

a weak link [169, 171].

Including spin degrees of freedom, the physics becomes much richer. The Hamiltonian

for scattering off an impurity now becomes

δH =∑

s

∫

dx V (x) Ψ†s(x)Ψs(x)

δS =∑

mρ,mσ

vmρ,mσ

∫

dτ cos(√

2mρΦρ

)

cos(√

2mσΦσ

)

(4.83)

and for a weak link connecting two semi-infinite spin-1/2 Luttinger liquids

δH = −t∑

s

[

Ψ†rs(0)Ψls(0) + H.c.

]

δS =∑

mρ,mσ

tmρ,mσ

∫

dτ cos(√

2mρΘρ

)

cos(√

2mσΘσ

)

, mρ = mσ mod 2 . (4.84)

89

Notice how the impurity couples charge and spin degrees of freedom. In addition to the

(charge) conductance G ≡ Gρ, Eq. (4.76), a spin conductance Gσ = 2Kσe2/h can be

defined. Then several phases are possible in principle, depending on the interactions Kν :

(i) the impurity can be irrelevant for charge and spin so that one recovers the perfect

conductor Gν = 2Kνe2/h; (ii) the impurity can be relevant in one channel only, i.e. one

has a charge conductor and spin insulator (Gρ = 2Kρe2/h and Gσ = 0) or vice versa; (iii)

the impurity is relevant and one has a perfect insulator Gν = 0. Treating the impurity

potential or the weak link by renormalization group, one finds that the most relevant

term is 2kF -backscattering of an electron on the impurity. In the limit of small impurity

potential, the renormalization equation for vmρ,mσis

dvmρ,mσ

dℓ=(

1 −m2ρ

Kρ

2−m2

σ

Kσ

2

)

vmρ,mσ. (4.85)

In the spin-symmetric case (Kσ = 1), the lowest term with mρ = mσ = 1 is relevant

[case (iii)] for repulsive interactions (Kρ < 1), marginal for free electrons (Kρ = 1) and

irrelevant [case (i)] for attractive interactions (Kρ > 1), as in the spinless case. Also

corrections to the fixed point conductances can be evaluated, and one finds expressions

very similar to Eq. (4.82) from the spinless case. Case (ii) obtains when, for some reason,

a potential component with mρ > 1 much larger than v1,1 and has to be incorporated first.

Its principal effect is to fix the phase of Φρ at the impurity to a preferred value. With

respect to this phase-quenched situation, v1,1 is irrelevant if Kρ < 2 and Kσ > 2 in general,

and if Kσ > 1/2 for symmetric potentials. All indices ρ↔ σ if a potential component with

mσ > 1 is large, and the criterion of symmetry of the scattering potential is replaced by

spin symmetry of the barrier. There are also several fixed points at intermediate couplings

where explicit calculations are possible [169].

For finite impurity strength, consistency requires to include the irrelevant electronic

interactions into the renormalization group scheme. This applies to g1⊥ in the spin-

1/2 case. Matveev et al. [172] treat a Fermi gas plus perturbative interactions. g1⊥renormalizes Kσ which enters the conductance exponent. Translated into a conductance,

one obtains logarithmic corrections to the power-laws characterizing the (electronic) fixed-

point properties. Matveev et al. also claim that the temperature dependence of the

conductance changes to nonmonotonic for g1 more repulsive than a critical strength.

Electron-electron backscattering can be quenched by applying a magnetic field. This

gives an interesting crossover behaviour to the conductance. At energy scales larger than

2µBB (µB is the Bohr magneton), backscattering is present and the system behaves as a

Luttinger liquid. Below 2µBB, the external field blocks the backscattering contribution,

and the scaling behaviour of spinless electrons applies. One then has to match both sets

of equations at ℓB = ln(2µBB). Matveev et al. also argue that backscattering can be

restored by applying a finite bias V , and predict a cusp-singularity in the differential

conductance at V = 2µBB/e.

The analysis can be generalized to a situation with two impurities creating an is-

land between two semi-infinite Luttinger liquids [169, 173]. By fine-tuning a parameter,

e.g. the energy of the (noninteracting and spinless) electrons incident on the barrier, one

90

finds resonances with perfect transmission at certain energies although they have a finite

width even at T = 0. As one turns on repulsive interactions, interesting changes take

place. One still needs to tune the energy of the incident electrons in order to make the

2kF -backscattering matrix element v1 vanish. (i) Then, however, the resonances become

infinitely sharp as T → 0 – the interactions suppress all off-resonance conductance. (ii)

The conductance exactly at resonance depends on the strength of the electron-electron

repulsion and, eventually, on the impurity strength at higher multiples of 2kF . In partic-

ular, for 1 > K > 1/2 (and also for 1/2 > K > 1/4 provided that v2 is small enough), one

recovers the full Luttinger liquid conductance Ke2/h at resonance with zero conductance

off resonance. Only for K < 1/4, or K < 1/2 and v2 large enough, is zero conductance

obtained. Of course, for attractive interactions, the barriers become irrelevant, there are

no resonances and one recovers the full Luttinger liquid conductance without fine-tuning.

Including spin, there are important differences, as can be seen easily in the limit of

very strong barriers [169]. The charge on the island now is discrete; if it is odd, there

will be a spin degeneracy as for a local magnetic moment. This is reminiscent of the

Kondo effect, where a magnetic impurity (s = 1/2 in the simplest case) is embedded in a

Fermi sea of electrons. Resonant transmission through the island is again possible upon

fine-tuning one (or several) parameters.

Generically, there are two types of resonances which can be achieved tuning one pa-

rameter only. The Kondo resonance is the generalization of the spinless fermion resonance

discussed above. Suppose that we have tuned the 2kF -backscattering term (4.83) to zero.

Transmission will then depend on whether the next-to-leading terms (mρ or mσ = 2) are

relevant or not. For Kσ = 1, v1,2 is harmless, and v2,1 blows up only if Kρ < 1/2. This im-

plies that, for 1 > Kρ > 1/2, both spin and charge are perfectly transmitted on resonance

(although a single barrier would be totally reflecting), but for Kρ < 1/2, charge is totally

reflected while spin is transmitted on resonance. Off resonance, there is no conductance,

as for spinless fermions. Of course, for attractive interactions (Kρ > 1) the barriers are

irrelevant altogether. Allowing for Kσ 6= 1, one can also find a phase which transmits

charge and reflects spin.

Another resonance is possible when both v1,1 and v2,1 become relevant, i.e. Kρ < 1/2.

For a symmetric potential and v1,1 only, one obtains charge and spin insulating barriers.

For v2,1 only, the barriers are charge insulating and spin conducting. As a function of

v1,1/v2,1, one will have a charge resonance with finite conductance in between two charge

insulating phases. In a case with broken spin-rotation invariance, this intermediate fixed

point is accessible perturbatively, and its properties can be computed in some detail [169].

Its main interest lies in its finite charge conductance, because the generic Kondo resonance

in this regime has Gρ = 0 and is thus difficult to observe.

More relevant experimentally is the shape of the resonance (an I − V -characteristic,

for example) as a control parameter δ (e.g. the gate voltage on the island) is tuned

through the resonance. Perfect resonance is achieved when the renormalized potential

v⋆ = 0. Off resonance, the conductance will be determined by the growth of v as it flows

away from the fixed point v⋆ = 0. According to Eq. (4.85), v1,1 grows with an exponent

λ = 1−Kρ/2−Kσ/2 (resp. 1−K for spinless fermions). Close to the critical point, there

91

will be a vanishing frequency scale Ω ∼ δ1/λ. Here, one then expects the conductance

depend in a universal way on the ratio Ω/T

G(T, δ) ∼ G(cδ/T λ) (4.86)

where G is a universal scaling function. For small argument, one can expand G to second

order about the fixed-point value G⋆. For large arguments, i.e. far from the critical point,

one can match onto the conductance at finite temperature in the single-strong-impurity

limit. In this way, one finds

G(X) ∼ X−2/Kρ (4.87)

(drop the index ρ for fermions without spin). Only for a noninteracting system is the line

shape Lorentzian. If interactions are present (Kρ 6= 1), the tails of the resonance line will

be suppressed (repulsion) or enhanced (attraction). For spinless fermions, these scaling

arguments can be backed up by an exact nonperturbative calculation for a special value

of the coupling constant K = 1/2. Moreover, for another value K = 1/3, relevant for

the Luttinger liquid description of the fractional quantum Hall effect at ν = 1/3 (where

ν is the Landau level filling factor) [174] (Section 6.3), quantum Monte Carlo simulations

give excellent agreement with the scaling prediction (4.87) and, in addition, provide the

complete scaling function G(X) for all X [175].

A particularly detailed discussion of the line shapes is given by Furusaki and Nagaosa

either for the tail region of a strong resonance or in the limit of strong barriers (weak

link) [173]. They showed that, only for strong electron-electron interaction (no matter

what its sign), both width and height of the peak vary monotonically with temperature.

Nonmonotonic behaviour in one of these quantities is observed for weaker interactions

1/2 < K < 2: for repulsive interactions, the peak height passes through a minimum

between its high-temperature value and the low-T fixed point conductance Ke2/h, while

for moderate attraction, the peak width passes through a minimum. The crossover in

both cases is determined by the ratio of temperature to the island quantization energy

δǫ ∼ vF/R.

These results apply to short-range i.e. well-screened interactions. This is presumably

relevant for quasi-1D organic metals but a doubtful hypothesis for semiconductor quantum

wires where the electron density both in the wire and in its environment is low. Then, the

long-range nature of the Coulomb interactions has to be taken into account [90]. There

are two essential modifications [176]: (i) the conductance of even the pure Luttinger liquid

is length (L) dependent as

G(L) =3e2ν

h√

R⊥/L, (4.88)

where R⊥ is the transverse extension of the quantum wire, and ν = (2/3)√

(1 + g1)π/4ζ

(with g1 the 2kF -component of the Coulomb potential, ζ = e2/κvF , and κ a dielectric

constant simulating the environment). The length-dependence of G apparently indicates a

vanishing of the Drude weight in the conductivity of the infinite system. This is interpreted

as being due to the vanishing compressibility of this system with long-range interactions,

92

Eqs. (3.62) and (3.66) with Kρ → 0 [Section 4.4, after Eq. (4.55)]. (ii) The conductance

through an impurity vanishes faster than any power of T or V (replace T → eV below)

G(T ) ∼ exp[

−ν ln3/2(T0/T )]

. (4.89)

This is very much reminiscent of threshold behaviour.

Essentially in disagreement with this work, an earlier calculation [177] finds a power-

law variation of the resistivity with temperature by treating the scattering with a fi-

nite density of impurities in Born approximation. Using the same method, Ogata and

Fukuyama later studied the crossover taking place as a function of system size and tem-

perature, between regimes of quantized conductance implying infinite dc-conductivity,

and finite conductivity [178]. They show that, for small L, one better thinks in terms

of a conductance G = 2Kρe2/h (including spin) while beyond a given system size (de-

termined by temperature and the elastic mean free path), the conductance crosses over

to a 1/L-behaviour which implies finite dc-conductivity. While details of their prediction

may depend on computational procedures, the existence of such a crossover seems quite

plausible both for short and long range interactions.

We now pass on to the problem of many randomly positioned impurities. Here, the

interference of the scattered electrons becomes important and can lead to localization

[179]. In a noninteracting 1D electron gas in the presence of disorder, all states will be

localized [180]. This need no longer be so if electron-electron interaction is turned on, and

we have given a general discussion of their mutual renormalization in Section 4.5. Here

we sketch their influence on transport.

One important feature is already apparent when comparing the renormalization group

flow of a single impurity [(4.85) with mρ = mσ = 1] and of many impurities (Section 4.5)

in a Luttinger liquid. For the noninteracting system, the single impurity is marginal, i.e.

does not change its conductance, while a finite concentration of impurities is strongly

relevant and leads to localization (the interacting system follows the same logic). The

difference is due to quantum interference, i.e. an electron multiply scattered off impurities

interferes with its time reversed shadow. This leads to an effective backward scattering

of the electron and enhanced localization. The process is absent for a single impurity.

The renormalization group equations allow to determine, in some cases, the localiza-

tion length Lloc and temperature Tloc = vF/Lloc beyond/below which localization takes

place. For small disorder D → 0, and close to the critical surface where the disorder is

marginal, one finds respectively

Lloc ∼ D−1/(3−Kρ−K⋆σ) , Lloc ∼ exp

(

Kρ − 2

D − (Kρ − 2)Yσ

)

. (4.90)

In the spin-gap phases, these equations change [put K⋆σ = 0 and replace exp(. . .) by

exp1/√

9D − (Kρ − 3)2 in (4.90)].

To determine the temperature-dependent conductivity σ(T ), we observe that thermal

fluctuations will break coherence at a length scale ξT = vF/T , and renormalization will

stop there. The conductivity can then be calculated in Born approximation. In the

93

delocalized phase, one obtains σ ∼ T−1−γ with γ = K⋆ρ−2 in the TS region and γ = K⋆

ρ−3

in the SS region, and K⋆ρ is the renormalization group fixed point value. In the localized

region, Tloc sets a crossover scale: for T > Tloc, conductivity first increases with decreasing

temperature, and only for T < Tloc the quantum interference leading to localization and a

decreasing σ(T ) sets in. Above (below) Tloc (Lloc), quantum interference is unimportant

and one has a diffusive regime (absent for noninteracting 1D electrons). Furusaki and

Nagaosa have refined this picture by pointing out that there is another temperature scale

Tdis = vF/kBR > Tloc where R is the mean impurity distance [171]. For Tdis > T > Tloc,

there is no localization (quantum interference) and the impurities behave as isolated.

Electron-electron interactions are present however, and the conductivity of the system is

governed by the scattering off individual impurities as considered in the beginning of this

Section. Tdis necessarily exceeds Tloc because localization can take place only on length

scales beyond the mean impurity distance.

4.6.3 Electron-phonon scattering

One may finally inquire about the influence of electron-phonon scattering on the conduc-

tivity of a Luttinger liquid. The renormalization group equations for the electron-phonon

problem (4.65) are strongly controlled by ωph/E(ℓ). For ℓ > ln(EF/ωph), they reduce to

a purely electronic problem with renormalized starting parameters. For an incommen-

surate system where there are no non-Luttinger interactions left in the charge channel,

once all retardation effects have been renormalized away one expects to find a Drude

peak with a renormalized weight 2v⋆ρK

⋆ρ where vρ and Kρ are obtained from (4.65). These

parameters generically decrease under renormalization so that the conductivity is lowered

by electron-phonon scattering. An exception occurs only in the high-phonon-frequency

regime of models with significant forward scattering which do have dominant supercon-

ducting fluctuations [157]. At temperatures above the phonon frequency, the renormal-

ization stop is determined by T , and one can take over the conductivity results from the

impurity scattering problem.

Interesting effects occur in the optical conductivity σ(ω). In the presence of phonons,

a new absorption process (Holstein absorption) is allowed: upon absorbing a photon (ω

finite, q ≈ 0), one creates a particle-hole pair [ωp−h = ω − ωph(q)] and a phonon [ωph(q)]

whose essential task is to take up the momentum imparted by the particle-hole pair. Such

a process is possible, of course, only for ω > ωph, and the additional optical conductivity

generated, has been computed in second order for a 2kF -phonon as [159]

σhol(ω) ∼ Θ(ω − ω2kF) | ω − ω2kF

|1−αCDW , (4.91)

where αCDW is the CDW correlation function exponent (3.92). In higher orders, one

has to take account of the lattice softening induced by the electron-phonon coupling,

and there will be Holstein conductivity for all ω > 0 varying again as a power-law for

small ω. Small momentum scattering, on the other hand, in inefficient in generating

additional conductivity in the absence of band curvature. Physically, this is so because

the particle and the hole generated travel with the same group velocity and therefore

94

will recombine with probability one. In the presence of band-curvature, there is a finite

forward contribution to the Holstein conductivity.

4.7 The notion of a Landau-Luttinger liquid

We have seen in Section 4.4.2 that the Bethe Ansatz solution of the Hubbard model (4.24)

is generated from the distributions of two quantum numbers Ii and Jα via the Lieb-

Wu equations (4.25) and (4.26). In the ground state, Ii and Jα occupy consecutive

integer or half-odd-integer values once and only once, so that the distribution functions

become

M0c (q) = Θ(2kF − |q|) , N0

↓ (p) = Θ(kF↓ − |p|) (4.92)

in the limit L → ∞. The single occupancy of q- and p-states suggests that (pseudo)-

particles associated with these quantum numbers behave as fermions. Carmelo and col-

laborators have used this fact to construct a formalism which allows an interpretation

of the Bethe-Ansatz solution in terms of a generalized Fermi liquid of charge- and spin-

pseudo-particles, and proposed the name “Landau-Luttinger liquid” to integrable quan-

tum systems exhibiting this structure [168], [181]-[184]. The low-energy physics is fully

controlled by departures of the distribution functions from their ground state forms (4.92).

Consider a Hubbard model off half-filling in a magnetic field. The SO(4)-symmetry

is therefore broken down to U(1) × U(1). In this case, all low-energy excitations of the

Hubbard model are given by real roots ki, Λα of the Lieb-Wu equations (4.25) and

(4.26), and are functionals of the distributions Mc(q) and N↓(p). Quantities like the energy

E or the momentum P of a state, Eq. (4.28), or magnetization and particle number, are

therefore functionals of Mc(q) and N↓(p), too. All low-energy states only have small

deviations δc(q), δ↓(p) from their ground state distributions

Mc(q) = M0c (q) + δc(q) , N↓(p) = N0

↓ (p) + δ↓(p) . (4.93)

The smallness of δc(q) and δ↓(p) allows an expansion of the energy in powers of these

deviations E = E0 + E1 + E2 + . . .. Here, E0 is the ground state energy, and

E1 =L

2π

∫ π

−πdq δc(q) εc(q) +

∫ kF↑

−kF↑

dp δ↓(p) ε↓(p)

, (4.94)

E2 =L

(2π)2

∫ π

πdq∫ π

−πdq′δc(q)

fcc(q, q′)

2δc(q

′)

+∫ kF↑

−kF↑

dp∫ kF↑

−kF↑

dp′δ↓(p)fss(p, p

′)

2δ↓(p

′)

+∫ π

−πdq∫ kF↑

−kF↑

dpδc(q)fcs(q, p)δ↓(p)

(4.95)

in precise analogy to the Fermi liquid [Eq. (2.1)]! The quantities εc(q) and εs(p) are

the renormalized pseudo-particle energies, and the functions fcc, fss, and fcs describe the

pseudo-particle interactions. The momentum, particle number, and magnetization are

95

linear in the deviations and therefore independent of the pseudo-particle interactions. Also

the low-lying excitations involve only a single pseudo-particle, and the interaction term

is of order 1/L with respect to the kinetic energy and unimportant. On the other hand,

the asymptotic decay of correlation functions is controlled by finite densities of pseudo-

particles with low energy, and therefore determined by the pseudo-particle interactions

f . These interactions can be related to both the elements of the dressed charge matrix Z

(4.43) and to the scattering phase shifts at the Fermi surface [122]. The influence of the

interaction U and the external fields H and µ on the low-energy properties essentially is

through the pseudo-particle interactions f .

Though extremely similar in structure to the Fermi liquid, these Landau-Luttinger liq-

uids differ in some important ways. Unlike the Fermi liquid, the pseudo-particles describe

collective charge and spin modes of the physical system (Section 4.4.2), and a construc-

tion of the physical electrons in terms of these pseudo-particles has not been achieved

yet. Single-particle excitations constructed out of one holon and one spinon do not map

onto free electrons as U → 0. Finally, the pseudo-particle excitations here refer to exact

eigenstates of the Hubbard Hamiltonian whereas the Fermi liquid quasi-particles are made

from a superposition of such eigenstates and therefore decay with time.

Similarities and differences to the Fermi liquid can be gauged quite accurately from a

study of two-particle excitations [168, 183]. The dynamical charge- or spin-susceptibility

(ν = ρ, σ) has the spectral decomposition

χ(ν)(k, ω) = −∑

j

|〈j |ν(k)| 0〉|2 2ωj0

ω2j0 − (ω + i0)2

, (4.96)

where |j〉 is an eigenstate with energy ωj0 relative to the ground state |0〉. Carmelo and

Horsch observe that even in a Fermi liquid, in the limit k → 0, only matrix elements

involving single-pair excitations connect to the ground state [168, 183]. In this limit,

the pair excitations become real one-electron–one-hole excitations, and the corresponding

matrix element with the ground state reduces to unity. This fact can be taken as a

two-particle criterion for Fermi liquids. Unlike the quasi-particle residue, these matrix

elements (there are four of them, taking ρ and σ between states with holon or spinon

excitations and the ground state) do not vanish in the generalized Landau-Luttinger

liquids, and are determined by the pseudo-particle interactions f . The matrix formed by

these elements regularly tends towards the unit matrix as U → 0, indicating that the

long-wavelength two-particle properties of the Landau-Luttinger liquid smoothly evolve

out of those of the free Fermi gas as the interactions are turned on. Adiabatic continuity

therefore holds in the long-wavelength two-particle excitations. From a study of the

charge and spin currents, one can determine both the charge and spin Drude weights of

the conductivities, but also the charge and spin of the pseudo-particles themselves. All

except the spinon charge (zero) depend on U and the external fields and are not fixed to

canonical values.

From the Fermi liquid character of the pseudo-particle excitations, we expect that

we can find a framework similar to Chapter 3 for their low-energy description, and this

is indeed the case [184]. In particular, one can formulate operator descriptions of these

96

pseudo-particles, separately in the charge and spin sectors, which obey to a fermionic al-

gebra. The low-energy structure can also be analyzed with conformal field theory, where

one finds the typical tower structure of charge, current and sound excitations both for

charges and spin. The particle-hole excitations are described by a U(1)-Kac-Moody alge-

bra with central charge c = 1, and the Virasoro generators can be constructed explicitly

from the currents. Of course, one can then construct an effective boson description of the

fermionic pseudo-particles.

However, one always has to remember that the pseudo-particles are not perturbatively

related to physical particles, and their quantum numbers are not the quantum numbers

of real excitations. While they clarify the structure of the theory to a considerable ex-

tent, they still do not allow for a straightforward computation of the physical correlation

functions.

The single-particle properties of Luttinger liquids are distinctively different from Fermi

liquids. Their two-particle properties are distinct at larger wavevectors, but in the centre

of the Brillouin zone, they are very similar. In this sense, they can be considered as almost

Fermi liquids. The notion of a Landau-Luttinger liquid is one formal way of making these

connections explicit.

97

Chapter 5

Alternatives to the Luttinger liquid:

spin gaps, the Mott transition, and

phase separation

The Luttinger liquid is one possible low-energy state of 1D fermions, realized when there

is no gap in the excitation spectrum. There are several other possibilities: states with a

gap in the spin excitations or/and in the charge excitations (the Mott insulator) or phase

separation. (A more detailed review of the Mott transition in 1D has been written by

Schulz [185].) In many models, there is a duality between the spin and charge degrees of

freedom, and consequently the methods to describe them are closely related.

5.1 Spin gaps

Spin gaps occur in spin-rotationally invariant models when the electron-electron backscat-

tering is effectively attractive. We have seen an example for renormalization group scaling

in this situation in Section 4.3, Eqs. (4.11), when g1 < 0. Scaling was towards strong cou-

pling indicating that the Luttinger liquid fixed point was unstable but naturally, renor-

malization group alone cannot tell us much about the physics in this situation. The

generic model for this problem is given by the Hamiltonian (3.1) plus (4.6) with g1⊥ < 0,

and an easy solution was provided by Luther and Emery [186]. For explicit spin-rotation

invariance, we add a process g1‖ to the Hamiltonian, whose effect is to renormalize the

g2ν → g2ν − g1‖/2. After the canonical transformation (3.28), Hσ, Eq. (3.31) is diagonal

with a renormalized velocity vσ (3.33), and using (3.50), H1⊥ becomes

H1⊥ =2g1⊥

(2πα)2

∫

dx cos[

√

8KσΦσ(x)]

. (5.1)

The essential observation now is that for Kσ = 1/2, i.e. g1‖ − 2g2σ = −6πvF/5, a sizable

attractive interaction for a spin-rotation invariant model (g2σ = 0), (5.1) can be written

as a bilinear in spinless fermions (3.57)

H1⊥ =g1⊥2πα

∫

dx[

Ψ†+(x)Ψ−(x)e2ikF x + H.c.

]

(5.2)

98

in an external potential (g1⊥/πα) cos(2kFx). The kinetic energy (2πvσ/L)∑

rp σr(p) σr(−p)can also be written in fermion representation, and the total Hamiltonian

H ′ = vσ

∑

r,k

rkc†r,kcr,k +g1⊥2πα

∑

k

(

c†+,kc−,k−2kF+ H.c.

)

(5.3)

can be diagonalized by a Bogoliubov transformation. In (5.3), k ≈ rkF . From the sine-

Gordon form of the boson representation (5.1), it is apparent that the Ψ†r(x) create solitons

rather than electrons. The eigenvalue spectrum is

Er,±(k) = vσkF ±√

(k − rkF )2 + ∆2σ , ∆σ =

g1⊥2πα

, (5.4)

where ∆σ is the spin gap at the Fermi level.

When Kσ 6= 1/2, the problem can no longer be solved exactly. Renormalization group

arguments, however, support the existence of a spin gap

∆σ ∼ vF

αexp

(

πvF

g1

)

(5.5)

for all negative values of g1‖ = g1⊥ and, with a different functional dependence, for all

g1⊥ < 0, g1‖ < |g1⊥| [76]. This conclusion is reached by scaling the model onto the

Luther-Emery line Kσ(ℓLE) = 1/2 and relating the gap to the Luther-Emery gap ∆LE by

the length of the scaling trajectory ∆σ = ∆LE exp(−ℓLE). The gap may also be obtained

from a homogeneity requirement of the partition function [187] or by using the exact

solution of the sine-Gordon model [140].

The Hamiltonian (3.49) plus (5.1) is recognized as the quantum-sine-Gordon model

which is equivalent to the massive Thirring model [40, 188]. Both models are related to

the spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain [140, 141], and it is not surprising that they can be solved

by Bethe Ansatz resp. the quantum-inverse-scattering method [27, 28, 87, 189, 190].

Haldane constructed a renormalized Bethe Ansatz solution and could determine some

correlation functions of these models [191].

This gap has dramatic consequences for the physical properties. It implies long-range

order in the Φσ-field. This is best seen by going back to the boson representation of

H⊥ which has the form of a quantum-sine-Gordon Hamiltonian. For g1⊥ negative and

scaling to strong coupling, the energy will be minimized by 〈cos(√

8Φσ〉 = 1, i.e.√

8Φσ =

0 mod 2π. The Θσ-field gets disordered, and correlation functions containing exponentials

of Θσ will decay exponentially with a correlation length ξσ = vσ/∆σ. This cuts off the

divergences in the SDW and TS correlation functions, while SS and CDW continue to

diverge. Their exponents can be obtained by setting formally Kσ = 0 in (3.92) and (3.99).

(Due to the breaking of the SU(2) spin-symmetry to U(1) by our abelian bosonization

scheme, the cutting off of the divergence is obvious only for the Sz = ±1-components of

TS and the x- and y-component of SDW. The representation of the TS0 and SDWz (3.96)

rather suggests a cancellation of two individually divergent terms with ordered Φσ-fields,

which is also found in a renormalization group calculation of the correlation functions

[78]. The conclusion of non-diverging TS and SDW correlations in all components is firm,

however, and required by spin-rotation invariance.)

99

The negative-U Hubbard model falls into this universality class, and the spin gap can

also be calculated from the Bethe Ansatz [103]. A physical mechanism for the generation

of attractive interactions is electron-phonon interaction, and a renormalization group

treatment of this problem has been presented in Section 4.5 [154]. In an incommensurate

system where repulsively interacting electrons are coupled to phonons of finite frequency,

both the electron-phonon coupling and the phonon frequency determine if the system

scales towards a Luttinger liquid fixed point or into a strong-coupling region with a spin

gap. The first alternative has been discussed in Section 4.5. If the phonon frequency

ωph is small and the coupling constant γ1 big enough, the system will pass beyond the

Luttinger liquid fixed point g⋆1⊥ = 0, K⋆

σ = 1 before all retardation effects are scaled out,

and flow into the spin gap region. The scaling out of the retardation effects then provides

another factor ωph/EF on the right-hand side of (5.5), and g1 → g1(ℓ = ln[EF/ωph]) in the

exponent in (5.5). Usually, CDW correlations are dominant, except for a Holstein-type

electron-phonon coupling at sufficiently high phonon frequency, where superconductivity

is found [157]. Here, the electron-phonon system is in the universality class of the Luther-

Emery model. If the phonon frequency is low enough, it may be more appropriate to

start out from the Peierls mean-field limit [5], and correct it by quantum fluctuations and

interactions [154]. In any case, the formation of a 3D CDW is preceded by the opening

of a 1D spin gap on the chains.

Examples for opening of spin gaps when the spin-SU(2) is broken, are given by Gia-

marchi and Schulz [192].

5.2 The Mott transition

In half-filled bands, a Mott metal-insulator transition may occur as a results of com-

mensurability, manifest in Umklapp scattering (4.8) becoming relevant. The problem is

completely analogous to the spin-gap situation discussed above. In the special case of the

Hubbard model at n = 1, there is a duality transformation relating positive to negative

U

ci↑ → (−1)ic†i↑ , ci↓ → ci↓ , (5.6)

i.e. a particle-hole transformation on one spin species only. In the boson representation,

U → −U simply leads to an exchange of the roles of charge and spin fluctuations. All

results of the preceding section then carry over, and the spin gap becomes the Mott-

Hubbard charge gap, separating the upper and lower Hubbard (sub)bands.

This picture can be extended to include the effects of doping (in the spin-gap problem,

this corresponds to the introduction of a magnetic field which, however, is required to be

unrealistically strong to have visible effects). We take the doping level δ = 1 − n and,

due to charge conjugation symmetry at n = 1, do not distinguish electron from hole

doping. Due to the commensurability pinning, it is expected that kF does not respond

immediately to doping, and that one will rather create charged defects in a commensurate

SDW background. Therefore the gap structure is expected to persist for some finite doping

range, but the chemical potential will move above (below) the gap to accommodate the

100

additional charge carriers.

A more refined formulation of the model is necessary, however, to obtain a detailed

picture of the Mott transition [44]. We consider the Hamiltonian of the charge degrees of

(3.1) plus (4.8) and apply the canonical transformation (3.28). Unlike Section 3.2.1, we do

not require the non-diagonal terms (2g2ρ/L)∑

p ρ+(p)ρ−(p) to vanish but just transform

so that Kρ = 1/2. In general then, a finite g2-type interaction, not diagonal in the bosons,

will remain. The Hamiltonian then becomes [141]

H = H0 +H1 , (5.7)

H0 =∑

k

[

(vk + µ) : c†+,kc+,k : − (vk − µ) : c†−,kc−,k :]

+g3⊥2πα

∫

dx[

c†+,kc−,k + H.c.]

,

H1 =πvρ sinh(2θ)

L

∑

p

(

2ρ+(p)ρ−(−p) − f1

∑

r

: ρr(p)ρr(−p) :

)

,

v = vρ (cosh(2θ) + f1 sinh(2θ)) , exp(−2θ) = 2Kρ .

The fermions crk are spinless, and the boson operators ρr(p) refer to these spinless

fermions. H0 is of the Luther-Emery form and can be diagonalized. For the half-filled

system, the interactions simply renormalize the gap as in the preceding section. The f1

term has been introduced by Schulz [193] and does not affect the gap. f1 is arbitrary and

can be fixed as convenient.

At half-filling, the chemical potential is in the centre of the gap, and the lower (upper)

band is completely filled (empty). Doping will shift it into the upper (δ < 0) or lower

(δ > 0) subband generating a finite occupation of negative or positive carriers there. For

very low energies (≪ ∆ρ), the physics is determined by the partially occupied band only.

The band structure can then be linearized again around the new Fermi level kc = π|δ|,and one keeps only interaction processes at the new Fermi surface. f1 can now be fixed

so as to cancel all g4-type terms arising, and the new subband Hamiltonian is [44]

H =∑

k

vck(

a†+,ka+,k − a†−,ka−,k

)

+ 2πvρ sinh(2θ)f(kc)∑

p

ρ(a)+ (p)ρ

(a)− (−p) ,

vc =∂E

∂k=

v2kc√

(vkc)2 + (∆ρ/2)2, (5.8)

f1 =1

√

1 + (2vkc/∆ρ)2, f(kc) =

v2c

v2.

The fermions ark now refer to the partially occupied subband, and the ρ(a)r (p) are con-

structed from these fermions. This spinless Hamiltonian can now be diagonalized as in

Section 3.2.2.1, and the exponent K governing the decay of correlation functions is given

by

K =1

2

[

1 − 4vρkc

∆ρsinh(2θ)

]

. (5.9)

Notice the following: (i) As one goes towards the half-filled band δ → 0, the Fermi velocity

in the partially occupied band vanishes (vc ∼ kc/∆ρ → 0) which could be interpreted as

101

a diverging effective mass m ∼ 1/δ [194] as vc = kc/m in the vicinity of the Fermi

surface. However, caution is required with this argument, because when only a few holes

are left, the Fermi sea and velocity become ill-defined. The vanishing of vc indicates that

one has reached the bottom of the upper subband, and there one recovers the parabolic

dispersion of free particles with a finite effective mass. (ii) The interactions between the

spinless fermions vanish ∝ δ2 on account of the f(kc)-factor, i.e. one is always in the

weak-coupling limit close to the half-filled band. This ultimately justifies the separation

of the Hamiltonian as in Eqs. (5.7). (iii) K → 1/2 as δ → 0, which is consistent with

the behaviour of the Hubbard model, Section 4.4. We do however not make use of any

specific feature of this model, so that these results are valid for any Luttinger liquid close

to half-filling [44]. (iv) Densely packed, strongly coupled spin-1/2 fermions map onto

dilute, weakly coupled spinless fermions (holons, solitons). This kind of mapping can be

fruitfully applied to many other problems [196]. (v) Of particular interest is the Drude

weight D of the conductivity which, as was pointed out by Kohn [43], can be taken as

an order parameter for the metal-insulator transition. The spinless fermion current is

proportional to the one of the spin-carrying fermions, and the Drude weight is therefore

D ∝ vcK, vanishing linearly as δ → 0 with a slope ∼ 1/∆ρ. (vi) From the mapping

onto the 2D commensurate-incommensurate transition, it follows that the Mott-Hubbard

transition is in the universality class of the Pokrovsky-Talapov transition [193, 194, 195].

This is the case quite generally for the doping behaviour of models which, exactly at

commensurability, display a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition as a function of the coupling

constant, Eq. (4.11), and therefore applies universally to the metal-insulator transition at

even commensurability ratios in 1D.

At higher energies, the other (completely occupied) band contributes to the proper-

ties. To treat this case, Gulacsi and Bedell have proposed a bosonization scheme which

decomposes the physical fermion into four new particles, a right- and left-moving fermion

for each band [194]. The Hamiltonian then takes the form of a Luttinger model for the

partially occupied band and of a sine-Gordon model for the gapped band. One can then

calculate various correlation functions and, concerning e.g. the momentum distribution

function n(k), finds a sum of a Luttinger function (3.86), weighted by the doping level

δ, and a term linear in k characteristic for gapped systems [57], rather independent of

doping.

A mapping of strongly coupled spinning fermions onto weakly interacting spinless

holons can also be operated in the Bethe-Ansatz formalism for the Hubbard model [197].

The Bethe-Ansatz equations can be reformulated in terms of the charge excitations only

and, for small doping, can be mapped onto weakly coupled holons. The Bethe Ansatz

allows the introduction of a magnetic flux through the Hubbard ring, and the Drude weight

can then be obtained from the second derivative of the ground state energy, Eq. (4.54).

Also, the total optical spectral weight

πNtot ≡∫ ∞

0Re[σ(ω)]dω =

π

2L〈T 〉 =

π

2L

(

E0 − U∂E0

∂U

)

(5.10)

can be computed quite easily, so that the optical properties can be discussed in some

102

detail.

At half-filling, on a ring of circumference L, the Drude weight varies exponentially

D(L) ∼ exp[−L/ξ(U)] as L → ∞, defining a coherence length ξ(U). ξ(U) ∼ 1/∆ρ for

U → 0 but vanishes only logarithmically ξ ∼ 1/ ln(U) for U → ∞. ξ also determines the

exponential decay of the Green function at n = 1, and comparing to the sine-Gordon form

of the Hubbard Hamiltonian, is identified as the typical length of the solitons introduced

upon doping. The divergence of ξ as U → 0 suggests that U = 0, n = 1 is a quantum

critical point, and power-counting gives D the scaling dimension zero. Consequently, the

singular part of D should be a dimensionless scaling function

Dsing(n, L, U) = Y±(ξδ, ξ/L) , (5.11)

where the index ± refers to U > (<)0. Y± can be determined both analytically and

numerically in various limits. One remarkable result is that D has a universal jump of

2/π as U goes from 0+ to 0− at n = 1 and L = ∞ – the system is insulating at positive U

and metallic at U < 0. Moreover, at small doping, Y+(ξδ, 0) ∼ ξδ as ξδ → 0. The Drude

weight grows linearly with doping, as we have already seen above. It saturates for ξδ ∼ 1.

On the other hand, the sum rule (5.10) is rather independent of δ, L and U in the critical

region. At δ = 0, all the spectral weight is in the upper Hubbard band. As one dopes

the system, spectral weight is simply transferred from the upper to the lower Hubbard

band where it goes into the Drude peak, a result which also holds in higher dimensions

[198]. When ξδ ∼ 1, most of the spectral weight resides in the Drude peak, and the gap

structure has been destroyed.

The charge velocity vanishes as δ → 0 (the Bethe Ansatz explicitly gives a finite

effective mass to the holons). Close to the metal insulator transition, the charge entropy

then is much higher than the spin entropy and will dominate the thermopower. This can

then be evaluated from the spinless fermions [199], and one finds a hole-like thermopower

for n < 1 and an electron-like sign for n > 1 with coefficients varying as 1/δ2 [42, 197].

On the other hand, the Fermi surface is given by the number of electrons in agreement

with Luttinger’s theorem [4].

Kolomeisky used renormalization group to provide a general framework of the Mott

transition in a 1D metal of spinless fermions in an external potential with periodicity

kFa = (p/q)π (p, q integers) [200, 201]. There is forward and backward single-particle

scattering from this potential, and the electron-electron interaction is of spinless Luttinger

form (hslf). Forward scattering, though, can be eliminated by the same argument as in

(4.69) so long as one is interested only in the conductance which can be used as an order

parameter for the transition. The backscattering terms are then mapped onto a model

for the commensurate – incommensurate transition on 2D surfaces, which occurs at a

critical Kc = 2/q2 [202]. This mapping again identifies the universality classes of the

Mott transition. Unlike the Hubbard model, a finite critical interaction strength Kc < 1

is necessary for the transition to occur. We can approach it two different ways: (i) one can

decrease K → Kc at fixed band-filling kFa = (p/q)π (corresponding to a soliton density

ns = qkF/π − pa = 0 in the 2D problem) (Kosterlitz-Thouless universality class [77]);

103

(ii) one can vary the bandfilling kFa → (p/q)π (ns → 0) at fixed K < Kc (Pokrovsky-

Talapov university class [195]). In both cases, there is a universal jump of K and thus of

the conductance at the transition. The insulating phase of course has G ≡ 0, and in the

metallic phase

G =e2

h

(

K +|ns|2(q

2K−2)

q2

)

, (K > Kc) , (5.12)

G =e2

h

(

2

q2− const.

q2 ln |ns|

)

, (K = Kc) , (5.13)

G → e2

h

1

q2, (K < Kc, ns → 0) . (5.14)

Eq. (5.12) gives the conductance in case (i) above the transition, and here as well as in

(5.13), we have indicated the corrections predicted for slightly doping (ns ≪ kFa) away

from the ideal commensurability. Of course, K ≥ Kc includes the renormalization by

the irrelevant scattering processes from the lattice (in total analogy to the logarithmic

corrections found in Section 4.3). These are responsible for the nonanalytic correction

terms.

The universal jumps of the conductance can also be rationalized quite easily in a

language closer to the main development of this article. One would describe commen-

surability effects in the presence of electron-electron interaction by introducing suitable

Umklapp operators H(q)3 ∼ ∫

dx cos[2qΦ(x)], transferring q electrons across the Fermi sur-

face, generalizing Section 4.3. Their scaling dimension will depend on q as 2 − q2K and

therefore imply a critical value of Kc(q) = 2/q2 for each q. The universal jump of the

conductance is then immediately obtained by inserting Kc(q) into (4.77). Little work

has been done on the problem in the presence of spin. At q-even commensurabilities,

the above analysis is extended straightforwardly: the 2qkF -transfer Umklapp operators

become H(S=0,q)3 ∼ ∫

dx cos[√

2qΦρ(x)], where in the superscript we have indicated the

fact that the q particles transfer a total spin S = 0. These operators are more relevant

than those transferring finite spin and have scaling dimensions 2 − q2Kρ/2. The critical

Kρ scales as Kρ,c = 4/q2. The half-filled Hubbard model and the half- and quarter-filled

extended Hubbard models [50, 139, 142] obey to this relation. An example of an Umklapp

operator transferring finite spin is given by

H3‖ =2g3‖

(2πα)2

∫

dx cos[√

8Φρ(x)]

cos[√

8Φσ(x)]

(5.15)

which couples charge and spin. It is important in the half-filled extended Hubbard model

where the CDW-SDW transition is continuous at weak coupling but becomes first order

beyond a tricritical point at about U = 2V ≈ 4 . . . 5t. At the origin is H3‖ with a scaling

dimension (2−2Kρ−2Kσ) [50, 139]. For q-odd commensurabilities, half-odd-integer spin

is necessarily transferred in Umklapp scattering. The Umklapp operators therefore must

be of the form (5.15) although Φρ and Φσ have prefactors different from√

8. Here, charges

and spins are strongly coupled, and the Mott transition is accompanied by the opening

of a spin gap. The physics of such an odd-q Mott insulator has not been explored yet.

104

Transport in commensurate systems is very interesting because Umklapp processes

provide an important relaxation mechanism for charge carriers. The problem here is that

the conductivity does not have a regular perturbation expansion in the Umklapp operators

g3, Eq. (4.8). A way out is provided by the memory function formalism [203]. Assuming

that the system is a normal metal with a finite dc-conductivity (a strong assumption

which needs justification), one can rewrite Eq. (3.64) as

σ(ω) =2ivρKρ

π

1

ω +M(ω), (5.16)

and a perturbative calculation of the memory function M(ω) is well-defined. It involves

the commutator [H, j] introduced before which, for the case of Umklapp processes in a

half-filled band, Eq. (4.8), reads

[j(xt), H ] =8g3⊥

(2πα)2ivρKρ sin

[√

8KρΦρ(xt) + δx]

, (5.17)

where δ = 4kF − 2π/a measures an eventual doping level with respect to the half-filled

band.

If g3⊥ ≪ 1, one obtains σ(ω) ∼ 1/ω for Kρ > 1 and σ(ω) ∼ ω3−4Kρ for Kρ < 1 if

ω ≫ T . In the opposite case T ≫ ω, one has σ(0, T ) ∼ T 3−4Kρ. Of course, these results

are valid only at sufficiently high T and ω because at smaller scales, there will be a charge

gap and one expects an activated conductivity. In case that g3⊥ is finite, one can extend

these results by performing a renormalization group calculation such as the one in Section

4.3 which will be stopped by the finite temperature at a scale ℓT = ln(EF/T ). Then,

additional temperature dependence in the conductivity will be generated by inserting the

renormalized values of g3⊥(ℓT ) and Kρ(ℓT ) into the memory functions.

Surprising results obtain at lower frequencies where one expects the influence of the

charge gap. Here, one can use the Luther and Emery solution [186] to diagonalize the

charge part of the Hamiltonian in terms of new spinless fermions, and then express the

current in the new fermions [44]. The dc-conductivity comes out infinite at any finite

temperature. The explanation is quite obvious: the only scattering mechanism for our

charge carriers were the Umklapp processes which, however, have been diagonalized ex-

actly by the Luther-Emery transformation. Thermally excited carriers have no dissipation

mechanism left.

Away from half-filling, there are two regimes. If T, ω ≫ vρδ, the energy scales are too

high for the Umklapp processes to be quenched by doping, and one basically recovers the

half-filled band results. If T falls below vρδ, the latter quantity will act as a cutoff to

renormalization and freeze out the Umklapp scattering. One will then have a crossover

to presumably exponential increase with 1/T of the conductivity characteristic for the

incommensurate system. On the other hand, at zero temperature, as one approaches the

half-filled band, the weight of the Drude δ(ω)-part vanishes linearly with doping and with

a slope that depends on the charge gap [44], for the Hubbard model in agreement with

the Bethe Ansatz results [197].

Similar results for σ(ω) can be obtained by using Eq. (3.68). On the other hand,

the predictions for σ(T ) agree with the memory function approach [204] only in certain

105

cases [45]. Giamarchi and Millis suggest that the use of memory functions is particularly

dangerous in cases of infinite dc-conductivity where the underlying conservation laws

may not be incorporated correctly into this method [45]. In fact, it seems that there is an

obvious contradiction between the assumed finite dc-conductivity of the memory function

method and the infinite conductivity in the Luttinger liquid.

The q ≈ 0-component of the two-particle charge-charge spectral function [ImRρ(q, ω)

with Rρ from Eq. (3.91)] can be studied in detail close to the Mott transition because

the charge operator here has a simple representation in terms of the spinless fermions

ρ(xt) = Ψ†+(xt)Ψ+(xt) + Ψ†

−(xt)Ψ−(xt) [205]. At finite doping δ, one finds a two-peak

structure: a low-energy peak with linear dispersion arises from the long-wavelength den-

sity fluctuations within the partially occupied subband. It looses weight ∝ δ → 0 as the

Mott transition is approached. This peak is modelled accurately by the effective Luttinger

liquid description of Chapter 4. However, a second peak at higher energies (∼ ∆ρ) is quite

pronounced over a significant doping range. It represents density fluctuations between the

upper and lower Hubbard subbands. In the Mott insulating phase (δ = 0), it is the only

signal present. The region in q and ω in which a simple Luttinger liquid description is

valid, therefore is very small close to the Mott transition and may contain excitations

carrying very little spectral weight [205].

Shankar has considered the effect of impurities in commensurate models [47]. For a

half-filled spinless fermion system with nearest-neighbour repulsion V∑

i nini+1, which has

a Mott transition into a CDW state at V = 2t, he finds that the Mott gap is destroyed

by even a small amount of disorder. This is supported by numerical density matrix

renormalization group [206]. On the other hand, this work points towards persisting

differences between impurities in systems with and without a Mott gap: if one dopes the

system with an additional charge, it is strongly localized when the interactions are strong

enough to open a charge gap while localization is quite weak in the absence of the gap,

for identical disorder configurations. This situation corresponds to a Mott transition as

a function of band-filling at fixed interaction strength, and Kolomeisky has argued that

the elementary excitations remain solitons, as in the pure Mott system, which, however,

become localized in the presence of arbitrarily small disorder [207]. In contrast, for a

half-filled (S=1/2) Hubbard model, Shankar predicts the Mott-Hubbard charge gap ∆ρ

to survive so long as the variations of the random potential are bounded to |ξ(x)| ≪ ∆ρ in

agreement with general arguments [207] and real-space renormalization group [208]. The

difference may again be due to the impurities coupling linearly to the CDW fluctuations

which build up the order parameter in the spinless model but which are suppressed in the

half-filled Hubbard model.

In a different line of work, Horsch and Stephan [209] consider the conductivity of a

single hole doped into a half-filled t − J- and large-U Hubbard model. They find that,

in addition to the Drude peak, there is conductivity at finite frequencies varying as ω−1/2

and ω3/2, respectively. These analytical results are supported by numerical diagonalization

studies on rings as big as 19 sites. Currently, it is not understood why σ(ω > 0) in both

models differs qualitatively and also differs from the Luttinger liquid prediction ω3. On

the other hand, one could speculate that a crossover to the ω3 behaviour could occur as a

106

finite concentration of holes is doped into the Mott insulator and a Fermi surface forms.

The Ogata-Shiba wavefunction Eq. (4.34) [107] also allows to find the spectral prop-

erties of one hole doped into a half-filled U = ∞-Hubbard model, the prototypical Mott-

Hubbard insulator. This problem had been examined long time ago by Brinkman and

Rice [210] who assumed Neel order for the spin configuration. They had found a complete

localization of the hole becoming totally incoherent. Expressed in terms of the spectral

function

A(k, ω) = −1

πImG(k, ω) =

1

2√ω2 − 4

. (5.18)

There is no quasi-particle pole, and A is independent of k. This result, however, is mainly

due to the assumed static antiferromagnetic Neel order. In the U → ∞-Hubbard model,

the magnetic ground state is far from Neel, and taking the real Heisenberg ground state,

Sorella and Parola get quite different spectral functions [120]. Generically, a three-peak

structure is found which can be understood qualitatively as a convolution of a holon and

spinon Green function [∼ 1/ω − ε(h)(k) resp. ∼ 1/√

ω − ε(s)(k) [122], where ε(h,s)(k)

has been defined in Eqs. (4.29) and (4.30)]. At special wavevectors, two singularities may

coalesce giving the peaks observed. Unfortunately, qualitatively different results were

published slightly later by the same authors [121] where only a two-peak behaviour is

found. While the latter is in agreement with the spectral function of a Luttinger model

with charge-spin separation only and no anomalous dimension (α = 0 – there is no

partner for the holes to g2-interact) [59, 61], the reason for the discrepancy between both

results is not clear. The dynamics of a single hole in the 1D t − J-model has also been

studied by Horsch and coworkers [211] both by numerical diagonalization, and analytically

within the subspace generated by applying the hopping operator to the state obtained

by annihilating a fermion with (k, s) in the 1D Neel state. The two methods agree in

their essential features. The inclusion of quantum fluctuations in the spin background

changes the results in several essential ways with respect to the dispersionless, incoherent

Brinkman-Rice continuum. (i) It generates interesting dispersion in the spectra. While

the lowest eigenstate disperses on a scale J , the first moment of the spectral function∫∞−∞dωωA(k, ω) disperses on a scale t. (ii) To the extent one can gauge from the finite

lattice data, there seem to be three peaks, and the above dispersion behaviour suggests

that spectral weight is mainly transferred, as a function of k between peaks which have

different dispersion. This is not unlike the three-peak structure initially found by Parola

and Sorella for the Hubbard model [120] but different from later work by the same authors

[121]. (iii) The lower edge of the spectrum disperses little and remains sharp close to

ω ≈ −2t, but the high-energy edge of the Brinkman-Rice continuum gets washed out into

a tail of states. Comparing the work of the different groups it appears that the dynamics

of a single hole doped into a Mott insulator is not fully clarified.

5.3 Phase separation

For strongly attractive interactions g2ρ + g4ρ = −πvF , Kρ becomes infinite, indicating

an instability of the Luttinger liquid [9]. The physical interpretation of this transition

107

becomes obvious by going back to Eqs. (3.32) and (3.62) which shows that a divergence

in Kρ implies

κ =∂n

∂µ→ ∞ , vNρ → 0 . (5.19)

Both facts indicate that a particle can be added to the system without cost in energy; the

electron clump into droplets i.e. one has phase separation. This transition takes place e.g.

in the extended Hubbard model with nearest neighbour attraction [50, 139, 142, 143, 145]

or in the t− J-model with sufficiently large J [130, 131, 133].

108

Chapter 6

Extensions of the Luttinger Liquid

This chapter discusses three extensions of the Luttinger liquid picture. The first two

extensions are intimately related: models with two or more bands, and models with

several coupled chains. In the third part, we outline the important extension to chiral

Luttinger liquids arising in the fractional quantum Hall effect, where a Luttinger liquid

with central charge c 6= 1 is found.

There are very strong similarities between models with several bands and models with

several chains. The former in fact often model the bandstructure of materials with several

chains per unit cell. Coupling N chains by a hopping matrix element produces N bands.

They also can originate from applying a strong magnetic field to a chain. We somehow

artificially separate this topic into two parts on multi-component and multi-chain models

mainly because the physical questions asked in both parts are rather different.

To see the similarities more closely, consider first a two-band model

H =∑

k,s,α

ǫα(k)c†ksαcksα +Hint . (6.1)

α is the band index, and ǫα(k) is the dispersion. The Fermi momenta kFα and velocities

vFα may be different in general, and the vFα may be positive (electron) or negative (hole

bands at the centre of the Brillouin zone) as shown in Fig. 6.1. Hint is the interaction

Hamiltonian which contains all the processes gi discussed before, both within every band α

and between the different bands. For electrons in a magnetic field H‖z, the single-particle

Hamiltonian is

H0 =∑

ks

ǫ(k)c†kscks + h∑

k

(

c†k↑ck↑ − c†k↓ck↓)

, h = gµBH/2 . (6.2)

With s → α, this reduces to a spinless variant of (6.1) with ǫα(k) = ǫ(k) ± h. Coupling

two chains i = 1, 2 with a single-particle tunneling matrix element t⊥ gives

H0 =∑

ksi

ǫ(k)c†ksicksi − t⊥∑

ks

(

c†ks1cks2 + H.c.)

. (6.3)

Here the bonding and antibonding bands disperse with ǫ0,π(k) = ǫ(k) ∓ 2t⊥ and are

labeled by their transverse momenta 0 and π. The spinless version of (6.3) also describes

109

electrons in a transverse magnetic field H‖x, and the dispersions ǫ0,π(k) can then also be

obtained by rotating the field around the y-axis align it with z. Under this rotation, the

interactions transform nontrivially. The transformation does not affect the “isocharge”.

In the “isospin” channel, the g1-processes (and consequently also g2σ) transform as [213]

H1 = −g1‖

∫

dx : σ+(x)σ−(x) : +g1⊥∑

s

∫

dx؆+,s(x)؆

−,−s(x)Ψ+,−s(x)Ψ−,s(x)

→ −g1⊥

∫

dx : σ+(x)σ−(x) : +g1‖ + g1⊥

2

∫

dx؆+,s(x)؆

−,−s(x)Ψ+,−s(x)Ψ−,s(x)

−g1‖ − g1⊥2

∫

dx؆+,s(x)؆

−,s(x)Ψ−,−s(x)Ψ+,−s(x) . (6.4)

The last process does not conserve the total spin of the scattering partners. In a single-

band model, it can arise from spin-orbit scattering, and work on this topic is relevant

here [192]. The coupling constant is commonly denoted by gf and describes interband

backscattering and does not conserve the number of particles on a given branch of a

band. More interactions of this kind can arise in systems where the starting model has

internal degrees of freedom. Of course, in all these multicomponent problems, the stan-

dard fluctuation operators from Section (3.3) can be extended to include inter-component

fluctuations, giving a flavour of the richness of the physics that can be described.

6.1 Multi-component models

We first describe a multi-component Tomonaga-Luttinger model, and then some of the

instabilities occurring in more complicated models when scaling does not go towards a

Tomonaga-Luttinger fixed point in all channels.

The Hamiltonian for Tomonaga-Luttinger model with N components (colours, labelled

by λ, including spin and chirality index) is [126]

H =N∑

λ=1

Hλ +N∑

λ,λ′=1

Hλλ′ ,

Hλ = vλ

∑

k

(k − kFλ)c†kλckλ , (6.5)

Hλλ′ =1

2L

∑

p

gλλ′(p)ρλ(p)ρλ′(−p) .

We assume that the Fermi velocities and momenta are pairwise (vλ,−vλ), (kFλ,−kFλ),

corresponding to a symmetric dispersion, and that the coupling constants satisfy gλλ′ =

gλ′λ. The standard Tomonaga-Luttinger model (3.1) is obtained for N = 4 and the two

pairs of Fermi velocities and momenta equal. The density operators commute as

[ρλ(p), ρλ′(−p)] = −pL2πδλ,λ′δp,p′ sign vλ . (6.6)

One can now repeat the arguments of Section 3.2.1 to show that (i) the single-particle

Hamiltonian Hλ can be written as a boson bilinear, and (ii) that the equivalence to the

110

boson description is complete only upon including charge (Nλ) excitations with respect

to the vacuum. The Hamiltonian then becomes

H =2π

L

∑

λ,λ′,p>0

Aλλ′(p)ρλ(p)ρλ′(−p) +π

L

∑

λλ′

Aλλ′(p = 0)NλNλ′ , (6.7)

Aλλ′(p) = |vλ|δλλ′ +gλλ′(p)

2π. (6.8)

This Hamiltonian being a bilinear form in the bosons, it can be diagonalized by an N -

component generalization of a Bogoliubov transformation [126]

H =2π

L

∑

j,p>0

|vj |ρj(p signvj) ρj(−p signvj) +π

L

∑

j

|vj|∑

λλ′

Nλα(j)λλ′Nλ′ , (6.9)

P =∑

λ

kFλNλ +π

L

∑

jλλ′

sign(vj)Nλα(j)λλ′Nλ′ + (6.10)

+2π

L

∑

j,p>0

sign(vj) ρj(p signvj) ρj(−p signvj) .

P is the momentum operator. The index j denotes the new operators and parameters.

The renormalized sound velocities vj and the matrix α(j)λλ′ are obtained as the solution of

the eigenvalue problem

A · B|w(j)〉 = vj |w(j)〉 , (6.11)

A = (Aλλ′) , B = (δλλ′signvλ) , α(j)λλ′ = w

(j)λ w

(j)λ′ .

Correlation functions

Gλ1...λm(x′

1, . . . ,x′m; x1, . . . ,xm) =

(−i)m〈TΨλ1(x′1) . . .Ψλm

(x′m)Ψ†

λm(xm) . . .Ψ†

λ1(x1)〉 (6.12)

can then be evaluated either by generalization of the bosonization formula (3.41) to N

components, or by combining the Ward identities associated with (6.5) with equation-

of-motion methods. [In (6.12), x stands for the space-time point (x, t) and T is the

time-ordering operator.] One finds

Gλ1...λm(x′

1, . . . ,x′m; x1, . . . ,xm) =

∏

l

Gλl(x′

l,xl)∏

l′<l

fλlλl′(xl − x′

l′)fλlλl′(x′

l − xl′)

fλlλl′(xl − xl′)fλlλl′

(x′l − x′

l′),

(6.13)

Gλ(x′,x) = G(0)λ (x′,x) fλλ(x − x′) ,

fλλ′(x, t) = Λ−2α′[

x− vλt +i

Λsign(vλt)

]δλλ′∏

j

[

x− vjt+i

Λsign(vjt)

]−α(j)

λλ′

.

Here G(0)(x) is the noninteracting Green function, Λ is the momentum transfer cutoff

familiar from Section 3.1.2, and α′ =∑

j α(j)λλ′ with the sum going only over those j where

vjvλ < 0. Asymptotically, this gives

G(x, ∆Nλ) ∼ e−ix∑

λ∆NλkF λ

∏

j

(x− vjt)−2∆j (6.14)

111

with

∆j =∑

λλ′

Nλα(j)λλ′Nλ′ . (6.15)

∆Nλ is the number of fermions of colour λ propagating from 0 to x, weighted by signvλ,

i.e. the charge excitation introduced by the operator whose correlations are to be com-

puted. This is in agreement with the conformal field theory prediction, if the ∆j are

interpreted as scaling dimensions. That this is indeed justified is seen by evaluating ener-

gies and momenta in a state with a definite number of charge and particle-hole excitations

(Nλ, nj = Lq/2π respectively)

E(Nλ, nj) − E0 =2π

L

∑

j

|vj | (∆j + nj) + . . . , (6.16)

P (Nλ, nj) =∑

λ

NλkFλ +2π

L

∑

j

(∆j + nj) signvj , (6.17)

i.e. one obtains the typical tower structure of conformal field theories. Comparing with

Eqs. (3.161), (3.162), ∆j is identified as the scaling dimension of a primary operator, and

we thus have generalized these expressions to an N -component system [126].

One example where these expressions can be fruitfully applied, is the Hubbard model

in a magnetic field which scales towards an N = 4-Tomonaga-Luttinger model. Of course,

one could take the perturbative renormalization approach [214]. More accurate results,

valid at any coupling, are obtained, however, from the the Bethe-Ansatz solution in a finite

magnetic field. There are two practical possibilities: either use conformal field theory

directly to obtain the correlation exponents [127] or perform a mapping on the N -color

Tomonaga-Luttinger model by identifying the low-energy spectral properties between both

models [126]. We briefly comment on the second method.

The similarity to the ∆N and D in the conformal field theory treatment of the

Hubbard model in Section 4.4.3 should be apparent, as well as the similarity between

Eqs. (6.14) and (4.45). The requirement that the correlation exponents of the Tomonaga-

Luttinger model and the Hubbard model be equal, implies for the scaling dimensions

∆j = ∆±c(s) , (6.18)

where the latter quantity is evaluated in the Hubbard model and related by (4.49) to the

elements of the dressed charge matrix. Also the A-matrix, and therefore the coupling

constants gλλ′ of the Tomonaga-Luttinger model, can be found. This basically involves

constructing an expansion of the scaling dimensions (6.15) in terms of the excitations in

the Bethe Ansatz wavefunction of the Hubbard model. Of course, the coupling constants

gi are found linear in U at small U . As U → ∞, they saturate, as implied by the saturation

in Kρ. More interesting is the finding that, at fixed U , the gi have a nonanalytic variation

with h as h → 0, translating into a nonanalytic h-dependence of Kρ [127], and meaning

that a magnetic field h can never be regarded as a small perturbation.

Models involving interactions other than forward scattering alone often do not scale

towards the N -colour Luttinger liquid fixed point (6.5) and most often have been studied

112

for two bands (A,B) with or without spin degrees of freedom. The most important in-

teraction not contained in single-band models is interband backscattering, the last term

in (6.4) with coupling constant gf . In Eq. (6.4), the spin index labels the two bands

s = A,B. (There are more interband backscattering terms; momentum conservation

suppresses all of them but gf when the two Fermi momenta are not nearly equal.) For

spinning fermions, we can have gf‖ 6= gf⊥. For half-filled bands (here kF,A + kF,B or

2kF,A(B) = 2π/a), one must further add the corresponding Umklapp scattering process

g3. It is also useful to think in terms of charge fluctuation interactions (scattering pro-

cesses changing the number of particles in a band like gf does) and exchange interactions

(interband processes conserving the charge but changing the spin in a band).

These models have been studied most often with the same methods used for the single-

band problems: renormalization group starting from a bosonic or fermionic description

and eventually strong-coupling field theory. We neglect from our subsequent discussion all

non-Luttinger intraband interactions whose effects have been discussed in the preceding

chapters. The 2-colour Luttinger liquid (6.5) is a hyperplane of critical fixed points

g3 = gf = 0 [215]. It is stable for 2g2AB < −|g2AA+g2BB|, and then is attractive for [gf = 0

and (2g2AB+g2AA+g2BB) < c|g3|] or [g3 = 0 and (2g2AB−g2AA−g2BB) < −c|gf |], where c is

a constant related to the difference in the Fermi velocities. In the symmetric case (vF,A =

vF,B, g2AA = g2BB) the two bands decouple, and one can compute correlation functions by

the standard methods presented earlier [192]. In the absence of intraband backscattering,

the renormalization group equations have the Kosterlitz-Thouless structure (4.11), and

there are both massive and massless phases. If g2AB − g2AA < 0 and |g2AB − g2AA| < |gf |,scaling will go to weak coupling, and there will be a massless two-component Luttinger

liquid with dominant CDW correlations. The combination g2AB + g2AA controls if they

are of inter- or intraband type (corresponding to SDWz and CDW of a s=1/2-single-

band model, respectively). If one of the preceding inequalities is violated, scaling will

go to strong coupling and, depending on g2AB + g2AA, one will have either intraband

superconducting pairing, or one of two new types of interband CDWs (corresponding to

SDWx,y in a spin-1/2 single-band model). Their structure can be seen more clearly if

one imagines the two bands arising from two spinless fermion chains coupled by t⊥ [213].

There, they correspond to (i) a CDW with a charge density modulation on the bonds of

the chains and (ii) to a configuration where currents circulate around the plaquettes of

the ladder in an alternating pattern. This can be viewed as an orbital antiferromagnet

and is directly related to the staggered flux phases discussed some time ago in the high-Tc

-problem [216].

In the asymmetric model, the bands do not decouple. At weak coupling, this is quite

apparent from the renormalization group equations. At strong coupling, the Hamiltonian

can be decoupled into two sine-Gordon models involving phase fields which are linear

combinations of those describing the bands, with one condition on the coupling constants

[215], and the excitation spectra and correlation exponents can be determined. One

consequence of the coupling between the bands is that the correlation exponents for the

different intraband and the interband fluctuations may all be different. For example,

when g3 = 0, gf may become relevant and open a gap in one of the sine-Gordon models,

113

the other remaining massless. Depending on the precise value of the interactions, either

an intraband SS or an interband CDW have divergent fluctuations. It is interesting then

that the conditions for divergent SS can be realized from purely repulsive interactions,

something impossible in the single-band case [215].

Up to now, we have discussed only the physics of the charge fluctuations. The in-

terband exchange processes are interesting, too, and require an extension of the previous

models by spin degrees of freedom [212, 217]. Due to the proliferation of the coupling

constants, a general discussion of such a model is a formidable task, and will not be at-

tempted here. An interesting limit is vA ≪ vB, i.e. a band of light electrons (B) coupled

to heavy electrons (A). On a technical level, a small velocity vA in (6.1) is generated by

hybridizing a dispersionless A-band with the B-electrons [take the two-chain Hamiltonian

(6.3) and put t‖ = 0 for one spin direction only]. For vA ≪ vB, the charge fluctuations

between the bands may scale out of the problem. In that case, exchange between the

bands is the only remaining coupling, and the physics then becomes very similar to the

single-impurity Kondo problem [212, 217]. In particular, for positive exchange coupling

constants, scaling goes to weak coupling, in analogy to the ferromagnetic Kondo impurity.

For negative exchange constants, on the other hand, scaling is to strong coupling as in the

antiferromagnetic Kondo problem. The carriers in the two bands will bind into interband

singlets, and an interband spin gap will open. The dominant response functions are then

interband CDW and SS, depending on the remaining marginal intraband couplings. In

this way, one can model a 1D Kondo lattice.

Pursuing the analogy of this two-band model to the Kondo problem and identifying the

heavy carriers with spins, complete Kondo screening can occur because there are always

sufficient light electrons to screen out the spins (kFA < kFB in Fig. 6.1) [218]. Caron

and Bourbonnais have studied directly a 1D Kondo lattice with ns impurity spins and

2nc carriers [219]. They verify by second order renormalization group Nozieres’ criterion

[218], stating that complete Kondo screening only occurs when there are sufficient carriers

2nc ≥ ns. If this criterion is violated, the spins become RKKY-coupled by the electrons

and form a 2kF -SDW, at least for weak exchange integrals. For stronger exchange, a

Kondo regime may be reestablished.

Finally, we add for completeness that Emery has solved the 1D version [196] of the

two-band model which was proposed in 2D for the CuO-high-Tc superconductors [220].

Here, the band splitting is produced by a term in the Hamiltonian (ǫ/2)∑

n,s(−1)nc†nscns

modelling the energy difference between the copper and oxygen orbitals. In contrast to the

models discussed above, the two bands do not overlap in energy, and the physics taking

place upon doping is qualitatively similar to that arising from a half-filled one-band model

with a charge gap, which was discussed in Section 5.2.

6.2 Crossover to higher dimensions

On a macroscopic level, 1D systems are well known for their opposition to long-range

order. At finite temperature, the entropy associated with the defects in an ordered phase

114

more than outweighs the cost in energy for their creation [221], and thermal fluctuations

thus destroy ordered phases. At T = 0, the influence of quantum fluctuations is more

subtle. From the equivalence of 1D quantum systems to 2D classical statistical mechanics,

the Mermin-Wagner theorem [146] suggests that phases where a continuous symmetry

would be broken, could not possess long-range order even at zero temperature. That

quantum fluctuations indeed destroy long-range order associated with continuous broken

symmetries was demonstrated by Takada [147]. Finite temperature phase transitions

therefore must be a consequence of 3D coupling between the chains. Two mechanisms

can couple electrons on different chains: finite-range Coulomb interactions and interchain

tunneling.

The electron dynamics must also be affected by 3D tunneling. Assume that we have

a Luttinger model on-chain dispersion vF (rk − k1DF ) and a hopping matrix element t⊥

between neighbouring chains. The 3D dispersion of the electrons then becomes

ε3Dr (k) = vF (rk − k1D

F ) − 2t⊥ cos(k⊥bb) − 2t⊥ cos(k⊥cc) , (6.19)

where b and c are the transverse lattice constants (the longitudinal one is denoted a). We

find for the Fermi surface

k3DF,r =

r[

k1DF + 2t⊥

vFcos(k⊥bb) + 2t⊥

vFcos(k⊥cc)

]

k⊥

. (6.20)

If t⊥ is of the order of t‖ ∼ vF/a, the Fermi surface will be closed and we better start

from an anisotropic 3D system. For smaller t⊥, however, the Fermi surface consists of two

warped sheets, Fig. 6.2, and retains some 1D character. The issue now is the transverse

coherence of the electronic motion. Naively, we expect that at high temperatures T > t⊥,

where there is “thermal blurring” of the Fermi surface of the order T , the electrons are

unable to sense the warping and behave essentially 1D. At T < t⊥, the warping and

thus the 3D aspects of the Fermi surface can be probed, and transverse coherence would

emerge. We shall see below that the actual picture is significantly more complicated.

The reasons for these complications reside in the electron-electron interaction which

may possibly confine electrons on their chains. In 1D, here are two dramatic differences

from the free particle picture implictly assumed in the preceding arguments: the vanish-

ing quasi-particle residue at the Fermi energy, and charge-spin separation. t⊥ transfers

particles or at least quasi-particles. Its efficiency may therefore be severly reduced if there

are only collective excitations. While z(k = t⊥/vF ) 6= 0 in general, we still expect that

a reduced quasi-particle residue z(t⊥) ≪ 1 will delay the establishment of 3D coherence

in the single-electron dynamics [21, 22, 222]. Charge-spin separation could also confine

particles on their chains because a holon and spinon must tunnel together – yet in general

they are separated [223].

The theory we have outlined in the preceding paragraphs relies heavily on the 1D

nature of our models. The key point were the 1D conservation laws of charge and spin

currents, i.e. of charge and spin on each branch of the dispersion separately, Eq. (3.7)

which no longer hold at t⊥ 6= 0. Is the theory of the preceding chapters therefore limited

115

to strictly one dimension, or can it be extended beyond? What is its relevance for highly

anisotropic quasi-1D problems? Can it provide a framework to describe the physics of

real quasi-1D materials such as the organic (super-)conductors?

To answer this questions, we consider an array of coupled chains to mimic a 2D or 3D

situation. The Hamiltonian then becomes

H = H‖ +H(t)⊥ +H

(g)⊥ , (6.21)

H‖ =∑

n

H‖n , (6.22)

H(t)⊥ = −t⊥

∑

<m,n>,r,s

∫

dxΨ†m,r,s(x)Ψn,r,s(x) + H.c. (6.23)

= −2t⊥∑

k≈rkF ,k⊥,r,s

[cos(k⊥bb) + cos(k⊥cc)] c†k,k⊥,r,sck,k⊥,r,s ,

H(g)⊥ =

2

L

∑

k,k⊥

g(⊥)2 (k,k⊥)ρ+(k,k⊥)ρ−(−k,−k⊥) + (6.24)

+1

L

∑

k,k⊥,r

g(⊥)4 (k,k⊥)ρr(k,k⊥)ρr(−k,−k⊥) +

+∑

<m,n>,s,s′g

(⊥)1,m,n

∫

dx؆m,+,s(x)؆

n,−,s′(x)Ψn,+,s′(x)Ψm,−,s(x) . (6.25)

Here, H‖n is the one-chain Luttinger Hamiltonian (3.1) for chain n where the density

operators acquire an additional chain (n) or transverse momentum (k⊥) label. t⊥ is the

transverse hopping integral, m,n in the sums denotes the chains, and r and s are the

branch and spin index, respectively. We have allowed for different lattice constants in all

three directions. g(⊥)2 and g

(⊥)4 are the interchain forward scattering constants of g2- and

g4-type, respectively, which, in the case of a Coulomb interaction, must be equal. g(⊥)1

measures the strength of the interchain backscattering. If this term is included into the

Hamiltonian, consistency would require that one include also the intrachain backscattering

Hamiltonian (4.6) into H‖n, in order to treat both interactions on an equal footing.

We first discuss the interchain Coulomb interaction (t⊥ = 0). Quite generally, trans-

verse Coulomb coupling screens the effective on-chain interactions or, if negative initially,

makes them more negative [224, 225, 226] – a tendency reminiscent of Little’s old sugges-

tion in favour of quasi-1D materials as candidates for high-temperature superconductivity

[227]. However, a more detailed investigation leads to rather different conclusions. Inter-

chain forward scattering (g(⊥)2 , g

(⊥)4 ) respects the conservation of total charge and spin on

each branch of the dispersion on each chain separately. Moreover, g(⊥)2 is a marginal oper-

ator and only couples the charge fluctuations; therefore it will influence the dimensions of

operators, and the exponents of those correlation functions which are sensitive to charge

fluctuations. The Hamiltonian can be diagonalized exactly, and one obtains renormalized

values of Kρ(k⊥) depending now on the perpendicular wavevector k⊥ [224, 225, 226]. Ex-

ponents of on-chain correlation functions then contain integrals over k⊥ involving Kρ(k⊥)

or functions thereof while the spin parts can be taken over unchanged from the single-

chain problem. Physically, the system remains a Luttinger liquid but, concerning the

competition between SS and CDWs, SS is favoured at the expense of CDWs, not unlike

116

Little’s suggestion [227]. The situation is completely different if interchain backscattering

(g(⊥)1 ) is allowed. Firstly, as on a single chain, it violates the separate conservation of to-

tal spin on each dispersion branch. But, unlike the intrachain backscattering, (6.25) also

violates separate charge conservation. This indicates that, if this interaction process can

become relevant, gaps may open in the charge and spin fluctuations with the concomitant

possibility of long-range CDW order. This is indeed what happens, at least in the regime

of attractive on-chain backscattering, but also for repulsive backscattering if the complete

intra- and inter-chain potential has δ-function shape [224, 225, 226]. Depending on the

sign of g(⊥)1 , long-range CDW order can be stabilized with a wavevector Q< = (2kF , 0, 0)

(i.e. a CDW in phase on neighbouring chains) for g(⊥)1 < 0, and Q> = (2kF , π/b, π/c)

(i.e. the CDWs on neighbouring chains are out of phase) for g(⊥)1 > 0. Physically, these

results are quite easy to understand for dominant on-chain-CDW fluctuations because

the system can gain Coulomb energy from the charge modulations on the neighbouring

chains with Q< resp. Q>.

Up to this point, we have allowed general coupling contants gi both for the intra- and

interchain interactions. Of course, the physical Coulomb potential is V (q) = 4πe2/q2,

and finite forward scattering constants only arise as a consquence of screening (g1 can

be considered as constant but may depend on details of the wavefunctions of particular

materials). The problem of screening of the divergence of the Coulomb potential can be

solved on an array of chains [52, 228]: the interaction of two electrons on a given chain

can be screened by the electrons on the others.

The Hamiltonian

HC =e2

2

∑

n,n′

∫

dzdz′ρn(z)ρn′(z′)

√

a2[(nx − n′x)2 + (ny − n′

y)2] + (z − z′)(6.26)

[where e is the electron charge, ρn(z) the total charge density operator (3.44) at position

z on chain n, and a the transverse lattice constant] can be mapped onto the form (3.25)

with the couplings

g2ρ(q) = g4ρ(q) =4πe2

a2(ε‖q2z + ε⊥q

2⊥)

. (6.27)

(In principle, there is an infinite sum over transverse reciprocal lattice vectors, but the

matrix elements then will depend again on details of wavefunctions and are not universal

[52]). ε‖,⊥ are background dielectric constants. The giσ remain unaffected. One now can

diagonalize the Hamiltonian for each q⊥ leading to q⊥-dependent velocities and coupling

constants. The energy of the charge excitations is

ωρ(q) =

√

√

√

√v2F q

2z +

ω2plq

2z

ε‖q2z + ε⊥q⊥2

, ω2pl =

8e2vF

a2=

4πe2n

m. (6.28)

For any finite q⊥, ωρ(qz) ∝ |qz| in the limit qz → 0, allowing to define a renormalized

charge velocity vρ(q⊥). For |q| → 0, one obtains the plasma frequency of the anisotropic

system (ε‖ = ε⊥ = ε for simplicity)

ωρ(Θ) =ωpl√ε| cos Θ| . (6.29)

117

Θ is the angle between q and the z-axis. A renormalized coupling constant Kρ(q⊥) can

be defined from the diagonalization of the Hamiltonian. Its usefulness for determining

the asymptotic decay of correlation functions is, however, not as immediate as for the

single-chain problem. In fact, when calculating the correlation functions, one obtains q⊥-

dependent expressions for their decay exponents which have to be integrated over q⊥ at

the end. It is not allowed to use an integrated∫

d2q⊥Kρ(q⊥) in the standard Luttinger

expressions. As a consequence, the simple scaling relations between the exponents of the

various correlation functions (single-particle Green function, SDW, CDW, SS, . . . ) break

down! Each function has its own, independent exponent.

The screening effect strongly depends on the density of carriers and on the anisotropy

of the lattice. Denser chain packing means better screened interaction. In the limit of

vanishing packing density, one crosses over to the single-chain case [90] with a vanishing

plasma frequency, a correction ∝ ln |qz| to the Fermi velocity, and a formally vanishing

Kρ-exponent, as discussed at the end of Section 4.4.3.

Interchain single-particle tunneling t⊥ can lead to further new physics. t⊥ can generate

transverse coherence in the electron dynamics, i.e. a crossover from essentially 1D to

effectively 3D behaviour. It is not clear at this time, if the effectively higher-dimensional

behaviour is necessarily of Fermi-liquid type or not. Interchain tunneling also can generate

transverse pair tunneling (either of particle-particle or particle-hole type) which propagate

the dominant on-chain correlations in the transverse directions, and eventually a finite-

temperature phase transition into a symmetry-broken ground state occurs. In both cases,

the 1D Luttinger liquid is unstable.

We now consider the Hamiltonian (6.21) withH(g)⊥ ≡ 0 (6.24). The essential qualitative

physics can be seen from a scaling argument due to Schulz [42] and Wen [229]. Consider

the free energy of a system with small t⊥ at finite temperature and investigate the relevance

of different terms generated by an expansion in t⊥. The free energy of the strictly 1D

system is F (0) ∝ T 2. In second order in t⊥, we obtain a correction

δF (2) ≈ t2⊥

∫

dxdτ G2rs(x, τ) , (6.30)

where Grs(x, τ) is the single-chain Green function at imaginary time τ . This function

behaves as

Grs(x1 − x2, τ1 − τ2) ≈ | 1 − 2 |−1−α , (6.31)

with | 1 − 2 | ≡ vF

2πT

√

cosh[

2πTx1 − x2

vF

]

− cos [2πT (τ1 − τ2)] .

α is the single-particle exponent from Section (3.3). The correction to the free energy

then scales as

δF (2) ∝ t2⊥T2α . (6.32)

If α < 1 (i.e. 3 −√

8 < Kρ < 3 +√

8), a case encountered in many models (Section

4.4), this terms will become more important than F (0) at sufficiently low temperature no

matter how small t⊥, indicating that t⊥ then is a relevant perturbation. If t⊥ is the most

relevant perturbation, we expect the system to show a single-particle 1D–3D crossover at

118

some temperature T 1X . Only if α > 1 interchain single-particle tunneling will be irrelevant.

But then, look at the next order in the expansion of the free energy, corresponding to

interchain pair tunneling

δF (4) ≈ t4⊥

∫

d1 d2 d3 d4

[

| 1 − 3 || 2 − 4 || 1 − 2 || 3 − 4 |

](Kρ−1/Kρ)/2

[| 1 − 4 || 2 − 3 |]−2−2α

≈ t4⊥ max(

T 4α, T 2Kρ, T 2/Kρ

)

. (6.33)

The first term corresponds to two uncorrelated single-particle events and is the square o

δF (2). The second term is generated from coherent tunneling of a particle-hole pair and is

more important than F (0) whenever Kρ < 1, i.e. for repulsive interactions. Coherent pair

tunneling generates the third term which dominates the zero-order term for attractive

interactions. The particle-particle and particle-hole pair terms are more important than

the single-particle terms for 1/Kρ resp. Kρ < (2/√

3 − 1) i.e. rather strong interactions.

If this happens, one expects to find a two-particle 1D–3D crossover at a temperature

T 2X > T 1

X , and the system very likely will undergo a symmetry-breaking phase transition

to a ground state corresponding to the most dominant intrachain fluctuation. For spinless

fermions, single-particle tunneling is relevant for α < 1/2 i.e. K resp. 1/K < 2 +√

3,

but two-particle tunneling is stronger than single-particle tunneling already for K resp.

1/K > 1 +√

2 [230].

This renormalization group argument is good for infinitesimal transverse coupling

only. It will certainly fail for bigger t⊥: one expects the warping of the Fermi surface and

deviations from perfect nesting to cut off the Peierls divergence. Below the temperature

where this cutoff happens, superconductivity in general will be the only possible instability

remaining. A description of the system for finite t⊥ is, however, a difficult task. We only

briefly review the major achievements and refer the reader to more extended treatments

[21, 22, 222] for further details.

Early work starts from the exact solution of the 1D models and adds t⊥ as a perturba-

tion [222, 224, 231]. In this way, one generates an effective transfer of a pair of particles.

There are no real interchain single-particle transitions, and the pair motion takes place

through virtual events. The perturbation theory only becomes well defined if there is

either a gap in the charge or spin fluctuations, or if the Luttinger model interactions are

sufficiently strong [basically, the integral in Eq. (6.30) must converge]. This is a good

assumption for attractive backscattering where we have a spin gap, but not for the generic

repulsive Luttinger liquid. Doing then mean-field theory in t⊥ with spin gap, one finds a

transition to a SS or CDW phase at a finite critical temperature [224]. When only one

type of fluctuation is divergent on a single chain, tunneling will stabilize it into an ordered

phase. When both are divergent, tunneling will favour SS.

The question of a single-particle crossover from 1D to 3D behaviour was addressed by

Prigodin and Firsov [222]. When the 1D interactions are weak, the system will behave

as a 1D Luttinger liquid at higher energies. Naively, one would expect a crossover to

3D behaviour at an energy of the order of the transverse bandwidth t⊥. t⊥ is, however,

renormalized by the 1D intrachain correlations, and the 1D–3D crossover will only take

119

place at a temperature T 1X ≈ t′⊥/π determined by the renormalized t′⊥ which can be signifi-

cantly lower than t⊥. t′⊥ is determined self-consistently from the requirement t′⊥ = t⊥z(t′⊥)

where z(t′⊥) is the quasi-particle residue at the energy scale t′⊥. The renormalization of

interchain tunneling t⊥ → t′⊥ indicates a tendency of the electrons towards confinement

on the chains induced by their on-chain correlations. Below the crossover temperature,

the interference between the Peierls and Cooper channels is destroyed. The transition

temperatures to a symmetry-broken ground state and the competition of various types of

order then can be determined from standard summation of ladder diagrams. In the 1D

high-energy regime, the perturbative treatment does not allow for generation of interchain

pair tunneling. This, again, could only take place in the case of strong interactions or

presence of a spin or charge gap, a problem that also is present in later work by Bra-

zovskii and Yakovenko [231]. Interestingly, however, in such a gapped regime, Prigodin

and Firsov obtain a maximum of the superconducting Tc as a function of t⊥ for t⊥ ∼ ∆,

where ∆ is the 1D spin or charge gap [222]. Tc at maximum is significantly higher than

in the 3D limit t⊥ → t‖. The reasons for this become apparent upon realizing that the

maximal Tc just occurs at the point where the Peierls state breaks down: here one has an

optimal combination of 1D effects (phonon softening at 2kF and high density of states at

EF ) with the 3D tunneling necessary to establish superconductivity.

Bourbonnais and Caron proposed a renormalization group scheme both for the on-

chain interactions gi and the interchain tunneling t⊥ with respect to the free Fermi gas

which generates interchain pair tunneling from single particle tunneling even at weak

coupling [22, 232]. The basic mechanism is shown in Fig. 6.3, where we display an

expansion of the vertex corrections in terms of the gi and t⊥. In particular, the last

diagram corresponds to the coherent hopping of a pair to neighbouring chains. This

scheme produces all kinds of pair tunneling processes because the general diagrammatic

structure of Fig. 6.3 applies to all combinations of propagation directions and spins. The

renormalization group transformations under a scaling of the bandwidth cutoff from E0

to E0(ℓ) generate terms of the type

Hpair =1

4

∑

µ,i,j,q,ωn

Vµ(ℓ)O†µ,i(q, ωn)Oµ,j(q, ωn) , (6.34)

where finite pair tunneling matrix elements Vµ arise from t⊥ through

dVµ(k⊥)

dℓ= fµ(ℓ) [cos(k⊥bb) + cos(k⊥cc)] + Vµ(k⊥, ℓ)

d ln Xµ(ℓ)

dℓ− [Vµ(k⊥, ℓ)]

2

2πvF(6.35)

fµ = ±2πvF

(

t′⊥E0(ℓ)

)2

g2µ(ℓ) . (6.36)

Here, the index µ = CDW,SDW,SS,TS denotes the different kinds of fluctuations, the

operators Oµ,i describe these fluctuations on chain i as in Eqs. (3.89) or (3.94)–(3.96),

and the gµ denote effective combinations of the coupling constants gi relevant for the

respective operators. In (6.36), the plus-sign applies for µ =CDW,SDW and the minus-

sign for µ =SS,TS. Xµ(ℓ) is an auxiliary pair correlation function for fluctuations of type

µ. The last term is an RPA-like interchain ladder contribution, the second term is the

120

pair vertex correction whose strong-coupling limit basically has been treated in the earlier

work, and the first term generates finite Vµ from the initial value Vµ = 0.

The fluctuation µ has a tendency to long-range order at that wavevector k⊥ for which

Vµ(k⊥) is negative and extremal. One now integrates the renormalization group equa-

tions (approximately) and finds the effective pair-tunneling amplitudes in all situations of

interest, both for weak and strong coupling, and on high and low energy scales. Interest-

ingly, the solutions allow for a regime where, for weak on-chain interactions, scaling of Vµ

goes to strong coupling at energies above T 1X . This corresponds to the growth of critical

fluctuations of type µ gaining 3D coherence. There can thus be a two-particle 1D – 3D

crossover temperature T 2X > T 1

X where interchain pair tunneling becomes coherent despite

essentially 1D single-particle dynamics. This complements, at weak coupling, earlier work

in the strong-coupling or gapped regime [231]. Moreover, since the interchain interactions

strongly depend on temperature, they can change from repulsive at high temperature to

attractive at low temperature. In this case, one will find antiferromagnetic fluctuations

coexisting with singlet superconductivity. At lower temperatures T < T 1X , in the absence

of perfect nesting, a transition to superconductivity occurs. Here, interchain Cooper pairs

form, and the superconducting gap has a line of zeros on the Fermi surface. By combining

the quasi-1D renormalization group with approaches like RPA and parquet summation,

a variety of useful results on critical temperatures and response functions in the presence

of interchain tunneling can be computed in all relevant regimes [22].

By 1991, it was believed that this series of work provided quite detailed a picture for

the crossover from one into three dimensions both concerning the electron dynamics and

the establishment of long-range order of some symmetry-broken phase. Then, Anderson

pointed out that both our simple renormalization group argument at the beginning of

this section as well as the series of detailed calculations reviewed thereafter, are irrelevant

because they neglect charge-spin separation [223]. This is supposed to be a particularly

serious flaw because charge-spin separation is a consequence of the restricted phase space

in 1D and a nonperturbative effect. According to Anderson, there is a well-defined order

in which to turn on interactions and t⊥: interactions first, and then t⊥. In this way,

electrons on the chains would first separate into holons and spinons and inactivate t⊥,

because it requires both of them, i.e. an electron, to tunnel. Consequently, the electrons

would be confined to a 1D chain. Only pair tunneling of holons and spinons would be

allowed, and therefore, in the language of the preceding paragraphs, one would necessarily

have a two-particle 1D–3D crossover. A single-particle crossover, presumably to a Fermi-

liquid state, would be forbidden. In addition, anomalous fermion dimensions could, of

course, strengthen the intrachain confinement [233]. Anderson also pointed out that two

chains are enough to study confinement which introduces considerable simplification in

the actual calculations.

Anderson’s suggestion has spun off a flurry of activity on two-chain Hubbard and

Luttinger models. Many of these do not follow Anderson’s prescription and diagonalize the

bandstructure first and then turn on the interactions. Moreover, charge-spin separation is

often neglected, again. In this way, one arrives at the effective two-band models discussed

before.

121

Charge-spin separation is present in a one-branch Luttinger liquid where the only

allowed interaction is g4⊥ 6= g4‖. The question “confinement or not?” can be studied

here on a minimal model. Fabrizio and Parola have produced an exact solution of such a

two-chain one-branch Luttinger liquid following precisely Anderson’s prescription in that

they first produce charge-spin separation and then turn on t⊥ [234, 235]. The Hamiltonian

is (6.23) with (3.2) and (3.4) for each chain. Keeping only the right-moving particles and

dropping the corresponding index r = + on the operators,

H =2π

Lvρ

∑

p>0

[ρ1(p)ρ1(−p) + ρ2(p)ρ2(−p)] (6.37)

+2π

Lvσ

∑

p>0

[σ1(p)σ1(−p) + σ2(p)σ2(−p)] − t⊥∑

k,s

[

c†ks1cks2 + H.c.]

.

The index 1,2 labels the chains. The on-chain part of the Hamiltonian has already been

diagonalized and exhibits charge-spin separation vρ 6= vσ. We now can use the bosoniza-

tion identity (3.41) for the interchain part H⊥ in order to get its representation in terms

of the on-chain phase fields Φν and Θν , Eqs. (3.42) and (3.43). Introducing symmetric

and antisymmetric combinations of the charge and spin density operators ν1,2(p) of the

different chains, the resulting boson Hamiltonian can be refermionized simply by inverting

the bosonization identity (3.41). Then going through a series of unitary transformations,

one finally obtains a Hamiltonian bilinear in fermions with four dispersion branches

ǫ1(q) = vρq ǫ3(q) = (vρ+vσ)q2

+

√

[

(vρ−vσ)q2

]2+ 4t2⊥

ǫ2(q) = vσq ǫ4(q) = (vρ+vσ)q2

−√

[

(vρ−vσ)q2

]2+ 4t2⊥ .

(6.38)

A particle-hole transformation having been performed in the course of the calculation,

these expressions are only defined for q > 0.

Two excitation branches 1,2 retain the original Luttinger dispersion: they originate

from the chain-symmetric linear combinations of the density operators which remains

unaffected by t⊥. The antisymmetric combinations are shifted by t⊥. At q = 0, they

are split from the Fermi level by ±2t⊥ and for q → ∞, they approach the two Luttinger

branches: ǫ3,4 → vνq. The ground state of the system is thus obtained by occupying the

branch 4 up to Q = 2t⊥/√vρvσ, i.e. up to ǫ4(Q) = 0, the chemical potential. Information

on the confinement of the carriers on individual chains can be obtained from several

quantities. The ground state energy change due to t⊥ is determined by the occupation of

the branch 4∆E

L= − 1

2π

4t2⊥vρ − vσ

log

(

vσ

vρ

)

. (6.39)

Being of order t2⊥, it indicates that there is a finite ground state expectation value of H(t)⊥

(e.g. ∆E ∝ t2⊥ is obtained for free particles where t⊥ shifts the bands). The occupation

number difference between the bonding and anti-bonding bands (labelled by their k⊥-

values 0 and π) is〈N0 −Nπ〉

L=

4t⊥2π

1

vρ − vσlog

(

vσ

vρ

)

, (6.40)

122

also indicating a shift between the bonding and anti-bonding bands ∝ t⊥. The difference

in occupation numbers corresponds to a shift of the Fermi wavevector between the bonding

and antibonding bands of 2∆kF with

∆kF =t⊥

vρ − vσlog

(

vρ

vσ

)

. (6.41)

All three quantities show that interchain tunneling does shift the bonding with respect to

the antibonding band, and that there is no confinement of electrons on individual chains

despite charge-spin separation. On the other hand, the nature of the spectrum indicates

that charge-spin separation is a phenomenon robust against interchain coupling so that it

could conceivably survive under certain circumstances in more than one dimension, and

with it some Luttinger liquid physics.

This is made more clear in the single- and many-particle dynamics. The Green func-

tion for particles with transverse momentum 0 or π can be calculated from a cumulant

expansion and becomes

〈Ψ0,π(x, t)Ψ†0,π(0, 0)〉 ∼ ei(kF±∆kF )x(x− vρt)

−3/8(x− vσt)−3/8(x− vrt)

−1/4 , (6.42)

where vr = 2vρvσ/(vρ + vσ) and the +(−)-signs go with k⊥ = 0, π, respectively. The

corresponding spectral function still is purely incoherent – there is no quasi-particle-like

feature – but now, it exhibits a three-peak structure at wavevectors small with respect

to t⊥/(vρ − vσ), compared to two peaks for the isolated chains. In the new excitation

dispersing with vr, charge and spin strongly interact through t⊥. At large wavevectors,

on the contrary, t⊥ seems to be inefficient, and the spectral function reduces to that of two

uncoupled chains [53, 59, 61]. The long-wavelength charge and spin density correlation

functions are also changed. The on-chain spectral function for the charge fluctuations

contains a pole contribution from the Luttinger branch which has the form of isolated

chains. In addition, there are incoherent pieces close to vρq ± 2t⊥ indicating branch cuts

in the correlation function, which originate from the coupling between charge and spin

fluctuations generated by t⊥ as well as the nonlinear dispersion of ǫ3,4(q). As q is increased,

spectral weight is transferred from the incoherent features into the central pole.

For the special problem of the two-chain–one-branch Luttinger liquid, the same results

are found by proceeding in the opposite sense: first diagonalize the band structure and

then turn on the interactions [236]. Here, one bosonizes the bonding and antibonding

fermions, but now the antiparallel-spin interactions lead to a Hamiltonian which is highly

nonlinear in the boson operators [of the structure of the backscattering Hamiltonian H1⊥in Eq. (4.6) but with right- or left-moving fields only], so that an exact solution no longer

is feasible. Still, the Hamiltonian separates into four pieces corresponding to the four

excitations found in Eq. (6.38). These spectra can be determined from thermodynamics

and using special symmetries of the model, and agree with (6.38). The Green function

then obtains as Eq. (6.42).

Although obtained from an exceedingly simple Hamiltonian, these results are ex-

tremely important. They tell us (i) that even in the case where the interchain tunneling

is turned on after the establishment of charge-spin separation on the chains, there is

123

no confinement of electrons by this special kind of 1D interactions, and their interchain

dynamics can become coherent; (ii) the results do not depend on the order of turning

on charge-spin separation and interactions. Since charge-spin separation was the only

important feature left out in the work reviewed at the beginning of this section, we get

additional confidence in the relevance of its conclusions.

One can now include the g2-forward scattering into a two-chain model. This couples

right-and left-moving electrons and gives rise to the anomalous dimensions on a single

chain parameterized by Kρ. On a more qualitative level, one can study confinement by

looking at the stability of the 1D momentum distribution function n(k), Eq. (3.86), with

respect to t⊥. Turning on t⊥ at the end, one finds [237]

δn(k) =

t⊥ cos k⊥[

C +D(k‖ − kF )2α−1]

for α < 1

t⊥ cos k⊥[

C +D(k‖ − kF )]

for α ≥ 1 .(6.43)

There is a singular correction to the momentum distribution in the neighbourhood of kF

for small α while it vanishes for large α. This essentially reproduces the conclusions of

our scaling argument on the level δF (2) from the beginning of this section, Eq. (6.32). Of

course, in the large-α limit, we will find relevant pair-tunneling processes which are not

covered by this argument.

A more detailed analysis is possible if one accepts first diagonalizing the band struc-

ture – but from the behaviour of the two-chain–one-branch model above, we expect this

procedure to be safe. In a renormalization group analysis of Luttinger models (g2, g4 6= 0)

coupled by t⊥, new relevant interactions are generated by the RG [236]. Specifically, an

interaction term

Hλ =λ

4L

∑

|p|≪kF

[ρ+,0(p) − ρ+,π(p)] [ρ−,0(p) − ρ−,π(−p)] (6.44)

is generated and goes relevant, and its coupling constant λ increasing towards large nega-

tive values under renormalization – independent of the sign of the on-chain g2! It is driven

by interband forward scattering with antiparallel spins involving opposite branches (i.e.

of interband-g2-type but formally of structure similar to the usual backscattering Hamil-

tonian) which does not conserve the total spin on each of the four excitation branches.

In Eq. (6.44), ρr,k⊥(p) denotes the right- or left-moving (r = +,−) density fluctuations

obtained from the bonding or antibonding (k⊥ = 0, π) fermions with parallel momentum

p. Due to the shift between the bands brought about by t⊥, the differences in [. . .] do

not equal the on-chain densities. One can now bosonize the strong-coupling fixed point

and find that a spin gap opens in the system. At this level, it is not completely clear

if this favours SS or CDW correlations, but in a 3D array of pairs of chains, the Peierls

divergence will be cut off by t⊥ and superconductivity comes up [236]. Here, the Cooper

pairs can be formed predominantly either on or between the chains, depending on the sign

of g2. For repulsive interactions, one would find pairing between the chains, in qualitative

agreement with Bourbonnais and Caron [22].

One can go one step further and consider the Hubbard model on two-chains – finally,

this is the problem we are most interested in! This requires the inclusion of all kind

124

of backscattering processes, and one has to treat a problem with fifteen independent

coupling constants (excluding commensurate situations where additional Umklapps come

up) [235, 238]. The phase diagram is given in Fig. 6.4. There is a trivial Luttinger

liquid (LL1) at large t⊥ where the upper band is empty and only the bonding band is

filled. When the two bands only slightly overlap, there is another Luttinger liquid (LL2)

whose existence is related to a big difference between the bonding and antibonding Fermi

velocities. However, there is a finite value of teff⊥ and no confinement. Decreasing t⊥,

one enters strong-coupling phases. The phase III at large U and small t⊥ does have

confinement (teff⊥ = 0) and strong pair hopping between the chains. It is interesting

that an interband pair susceptibility, pairing particles of the bonding with those of the

antibonding band, has the most divergent fluctuations, but on-chain SDWs diverge, too.

At smaller U , one enters another phase I where the dominant pairing fluctuations involve

pairs from the bonding or from the antibonding bands. An interchain SDW diverges, too,

though less strongly. Intercalated between those phases may be a third phase II with

conventional on-chain Cooper pairing.

The correlations on two Hubbard chains can also be studied with numerical calcula-

tions [239]. A density-matrix renormalization group study finds a spin gap at half-filling

with exponentially decaying spin-spin correlations. The correlation length is a few lat-

tice constants. Singlet pairing correlations also decay exponentially, and their correlation

length is even shorter which may indicate a liquid of disordered singlets. If one dopes the

systems with holes, the spin gap is quite robust and persists down to at least n ∼ 3/4 i.e.

a doping level of 25%. On the other hand, the doping greatly favours the pairing corre-

lations (both on and between the chains i.e. in a d-wave like pattern) which change from

exponential to power-law and therefore will be dominant at long distance. However, they

decay as 1/r2, like free fermions which is definitely weaker than the divergences predicted

from renormalization group. In addition, no sign of the subdominant SDW divergences

predicted by renormalization group is reported from the numerical calculations. Another

Quantum Monte Carlo study where the reduced density matrix of the superconducting

correlations was computed, does find evidence for enhanced superconducting correlations

with respect to the uncorrelated system at n = 3/4 [240]. There is some structure in this

enhancement when t⊥ is varied at fixed U which has been associated with the different

phases LL2, SC1, and SC2 in Fig. 6.4. When t⊥ becomes so large that only the bonding

band is occupied (LL1), no enhancement can be detected. On the other hand, a finite size

analysis of the correlations assuming the Luttinger liquid power laws (3.92) and (3.99)

suggests that the exponent Kρ < 1 which would imply dominant density wave and only

leave space for subdominant SS correlations [240]. This conclusion does not agree with

the renormalization group work [235, 238].

Much information has also been gathered on arrays of coupled t− J-chains following

a suggestion that they could be used as a model for certain cuprate compounds [241].

Two or more chains described by the standard t − J-Hamiltonian (4.21) are coupled by

transverse hopping (t⊥) and and exchange (J⊥) integrals. In an undoped system of two

(or an even number of) coupled Heisenberg chains [242], if J⊥ ≫ J , of course singlet

pairs will form across the rungs of the ladder, and the excitations will have a spin gap.

125

This singlet-triplet gap survives not only down to the isotropic point J⊥ = J‖ but there

is evidence that it does so for any finite J⊥ [242]. On the other hand, for an odd number

of chains, no such dimer state is possible, and it turns out that its excitations are gapless

like in the single-chain model. Introducing holes into two chains will lower but not destroy

the spin gap [243, 244]. One can now combine this fact with a bosonization analysis to

inquire what type of correlations will govern the physics of this two-chain system. In a

spin-singlet state, the effective exponents for the charge degrees of freedom become

1

K±ρ

=

√

1 +J

πt〈Sij · Si+1j〉 ±

J⊥πt

〈Si1 · Si2〉 , (6.45)

where ± stands for the chain-symmetric (antisymmetric) combination of the phase fields

Φν and Θν used to bosonize the single chain, Sij is the spin operator at site i of chain

j = 1, 2, and the expectation values do not depend on the site index i [243]. In general,

one has K+ρ > 1 corresponding to attractive interactions in the bonding channel which are

generated by the preferred singlet (〈Si1·Si2〉 < 0) correlations across the rung of the ladder.

This analysis cannot determine if K−ρ > or < 1, which would correspond to modified d-

wave SS correlations or a special CDW phase where an alternating flux Φ = 2kF is enclosed

in a plaquette [243]. Such an “orbital antiferromagnet” had been discovered earlier in

a study of a two-chain model of spinless fermions with nearest-neighbour interaction

[213]. Numerical calculations seem to prefer the d-wave SS correlations [244]. The orbital

antiferromagnet is a two-chain version of the flux states discussed for the 2D high-Tc

superconductors; these flux phases have been discussed also for anisotropic 2D systems as

we consider them here [245]. They model systems with both open and closed orbitals in the

neighbourhood of the Fermi surface, and in the anisotropic limit, instabilities reminiscent

of the 1D systems are found.

There is also a detailed picture of the excitations created upon hole-doping a t − J-

ladder [244]. The lowest excitation at half-filling is a spin-triplet above the gap. Doped

holes (with concentration δ) will pair so that the spins can take advantage of the singlet

binding across the rungs. One obvious magnetic excitation is the triplet, again, which

can propagate in the ladder with an exchange integral J/2 while the hole pair moves with

1/(J⊥− 4/J⊥). The number of such possible triplets goes as (1− δ). But there is another

possibility: one can form quasi-particles, singly occupied rungs, carrying charge and spin-

1/2, as a bound holon-spinon pair. These quasi-particles will move with a hopping element

t/2 and their number scales with δ. They have triplet spin correlations. In a wide range

of J⊥, the creation of such quasi-particles is energetically favourable, and the spin gap

is then reduced from the singlet-triplet gap of the half-filled model. Consequently, the

dynamics and thermodynamics of the spin excitations is dominated by different energy

scales as the doping level is varied: increasing doping will bring up a new low-energy scale

associated with the quasi-particle excitations [244]. The quasi-particles also show up in

the single-particle spectral function although there are sizable incoherent contributions.

There is a coherent peak dispersing towards the Fermi energy as k → kF , until the spin

gap is reached. In this limit, the particle peak at ω > 0 has acquired a strong shadow

component at ω < 0, as in a superconductor [244]. On the other hand, this strong

126

shadow component is the direct continuation of the spectral weight at ω < 0 found for

the Luttinger liquid in Section 3.3, Fig. 3.6, to a situation where a fully developed spin

gap exists.

A generalization of this picture for four coupled t − J-chains is now available [246].

Also, the interplay of superconductivity and phase separation has been studied in the

regime of large J/t [247]. Here, a strong possibility for phase separation between the

chains is found, and this is precisely the range where strong signals of superconductivity

are detected. Notice, however, that these J values are out of the range which can be

derived from large-U Hubbard models, although more general models do allow them [97].

Very recently, the partition and Green functions have been derived for Luttinger liquids

on an arbitrary number of chains coupled by interchain hopping, including charge-spin

separation [248]. This analysis essentially confirms the earlier results [22] where this

feature had been neglected. Provided the interactions are not so strong that a two-

particle crossover would occur before the single-particle crossover, this work provides us

with Green functions containing explicitly a quasi-particle residue indicative of a Fermi

liquid ground state in this case, plus correction terms containing the remnants of the 1D

Luttinger liquid. Others give explicit spectral functions for the case of selfconsistently

screened Coulomb interactions [52, 228] including interchain hopping [249] although some

approximations made may overestimate the anomalous 1D component of the spectra.

An important virtue of the variational wavefunctions used for mapping out the Lut-

tinger liquid correlations of the 1D t−J-model in Section 4.4 is the possibility to generalize

them to 2D [250]. The Luttinger liquid state with nontrivial Kρ is stabilized by gains

in kinetic energy with respect to the Gutzwiller wave function describing a Fermi liquid.

It possess the anomalous dimensions of a Luttinger liquid but no charge-spin separation.

Moreover, as in the 1D case, one can apply the power method to obtain increasingly

accurate approximations to the true ground state which conserve the typical power laws

[251]. There have been claims of charge-spin separation in the 2D t− J-model based on

high-temperature expansion [252] but this interpretation of the data has been opposed by

others [253].

An approach rather different from the work above has been taken by Castellani et

al. who consider fermions with short-range interactions in continuous dimensions 1 ≤ D ≤2 [254]. Here, the Fermi surface is closed and isotropic in the D-dimensional reciprocal

space while the approaches coupling 1D Luttinger liquids with t⊥ ≪ t‖ all imply open

warped Fermi surfaces which conserve a strong 1D character. They find that while the

1D conservation laws for total charge and spin on a branch of the dispersion, Eqs. (3.106)

and (3.107), are no longer satisfied exactly, similar laws for charge and spin associated

with directions radially outward from the D-dimensional Fermi surface are still obeyed

asymptotically. This allows the formulation of corresponding asymptotic Ward identities

which strongly constrain the low-energy physics close to the Fermi surface. In particular,

a Fermi liquid fixed point is found for all dimensions D > 1. However, for dimensions

D ≤ 2, there are dramatic corrections to quasi-particle behaviour away from the fixed

point. They are strongly reminiscent of the behaviour of 1D Luttinger liquids but now

in radial direction. Such a “tomographic Luttinger liquid” behaviour at finite energy

127

could completely mask the Fermi liquid fixed point physics, and provide a realization of

Anderson’s suggestion [11]. Singular interactions, as proposed by Anderson, could then

conceivably stabilize such physics also at the fixed point.

We finally mention that there is a variety of work in 2D producing evidence for non-

Fermi-liquid and possibly Luttinger liquid low-energy physics using peculiar, often long-

range, interaction Hamiltonians [255]. Others attempt to describe the Fermi liquid with

methods borrowed from the 1D systems reviewed here, such as bosonization and renor-

malization group [256]. In some sense, one goes the way opposite to the one we took in

Section 3.5 where we applied standard techniques of Fermi liquid theory in 1D. Further

development of these methods will hopefully sharpen our understanding of scenarios for a

possible breakdown of Fermi liquid theory in higher dimensions, and for similarities and

differences to the 1D case reviewed here.

6.3 Edge states in the quantum Hall effect

When a 2D electron gas which can be created in the inversion layer of a metal-oxide-

semiconductor or a semiconductor heterostructure, is exposed to a strong magnetic field, it

is observed that the Hall conductance is quantized in units of the elementary conductance

σxy = νe2/h [257]. The initial observation was that ν is integer [258] but subsequently

fractional ν were discovered, too [259]. In both cases, the quantization is due to the

existence of a mobility gap at the Fermi level in the bulk of the sample, although its

microscopic origin is different: in the integer effect, disorder leads to localized states

while in the fractional effect, correlations condense the particles into a new collective

state whose excitations are gapped. Due to the mobility gap in the bulk, transport must

take place on the edge of the sample – a 1D manifold.

The basic model for the integer effect was put forward by Halperin [260] and developed

further by Buttiker [261] and others [262]. In Fig. 6.5 an annulus with inner radius r1 and

outer radius r2 is considered and the disorder is supposed to be confined to the bulk of

the annulus. The edges are shifted upward in energy because of the boundary condition

of vanishing wavefunction at the sample boundaries. Although all bulk states at EF are

localized (if there are any), at the fields where σxy shows a plateau, low-energy excitations

are possible at the edges. The excitations living on the edges are ordinary electrons.

They form a 1D chiral Fermi liquid – Fermi liquid now understood in the sense of the

higher-dimensional systems. In the Luttinger model (3.1), there is only one of the two

dispersion branches: due to the orbital coupling, all electrons move in the same direction,

i.e. have a definite chirality. This leaves g4 as the only possible interaction. However, due

to Zeeman coupling, the electrons are fully spin-polarized, and g4⊥, in principle able to

generate charge-spin separation, is quenched. Remains g4‖ which only renormalizes the

Fermi velocity and does not destroy the quasi-particle pole in the Green function.

Gapless edge excitations also exist in the fractional quantum Hall effect, and Wen has

clarified their nature and dynamics in considerable detail [174]. We attempt to follow

his proceeding here, because his way from very general principles (essentially only gauge

128

invariance, locality of the theory, and incompressibility of the ground state) to a detailed

operator description of the low-energy properties is in some sense opposite to the bulk

of our earlier presentation, and highly instructive. Related work has been performed by

Stone [263].

We first fix the general form of the action of the edge excitations from the requirement

of gauge invariance. Assume that a system displays the quantum Hall effect with σxy =

νe2/h in an magnetic vector potential Aµ. We do not know the detailed Hamiltonian,

but due to the gap in the quasi-particle excitations, we know that the electrons can be

integrated out safely, resulting in an effective Lagrangian

Leff [δAµ] =νe2

4πδAµ∂λδAκǫ

µλκ +1

4g21

(δF01)2 − 1

4g22

(δF12)2 + . . . , (6.46)

δAµ = Aµ − Aµ , δFµλ = ∂µδAλ + ∂λδAµ , µ = 0, 1, 2 .

δFµλ is the strength of the magnetic field. The first term on the right-hand side is

called Chern-Simons term, and its coefficient is given by the Hall conductance. The

detailed properties of Leff are unimportant in what follows. On a compactified space,

say a torus, the action Sbulk =∫

d3x Leff [δAµ] is invariant under gauge transformations

Aµ → Aµ + ∂µf(x). This is not so on a bounded space where

Sbulk[Aµ + ∂µf(x)] = Sbulk[Aµ] +νe2

4π

∫

dx0 dσf(x)δFσ0(x) . (6.47)

The variable σ parameterizes the boundary, and x0 = t. Gauge invariance is violated

by a boundary term generated by the Chern-Simons term. A gauge invariant action can

now be obtained by adding a boundary action Sedge, from which the properties of the

boundary excitations can be constructed. Sedge alone must not be gauge invariant and

must transform as (6.47) but with a minus-sign in front of the Chern-Simons contribution,

and is given by

Sedge =1

2

∫

dt dσ dt′ dσ′δAα(t, σ)Rαβ(j)(t− t′, σ − σ′)δAβ(t′, σ′) , (α, β = 0, σ) , (6.48)

where Rαβ(j) is the time-ordered current-current correlation function (containing, in the

notation of Chapter 3, Rρρ, Rjj and Rρj). It has the properties

− kαRαβ(j) =

νe2

4πǫαβkα , Rαβ

(j)(kα) = Rαβ(j)(−kα) =

[

Rαβ(j)(−kα)

]⋆, (6.49)

where kα = (ω, k) is a reciprocal space vector. We recognize the first equation as a Ward

identity, up to the different right-hand side identical to (3.113). The second equation im-

plements the required symmetries (even for the symmetric and odd for the nonsymmetric)

and the reality of the correlation functions.

One can imagine knowing the Hamiltonian for the edge excitations and their coupling

to the gauge field Aα. By integrating out the edge excitations, one would then obtain

the action (6.48). We proceed inversely and try to get information on the dynamics of

the excitations from the effective action. Assume that all edge excitations are gapped,

129

and that the theory is local. Then R(j) is smooth near ω = 0 and k = 0. But a smooth

function cannot satisfy (6.49). There must thus be gapless excitations (labelled by i).

If their dispersion is linear ω(k) = vik, and if R(j) has pole structure for the gapless

excitations (the gapped ones can only contribute polynomials), its singular part must be

of the form

Rαβ sing(j),ij (ω, k) =

δijηiSαβ(ω, k)

2π(ω − vik), (6.50)

S00 = k , S0σ = Sσ0 = (ω + vik)/2 , S11 = viω .

ηi = sign(vi)q2i , where qi is the charge of the excitations. There must be an operator jα

i (k)

which generates a state with energy ω(k) = vik from the vacuum. One can then deduce

first the vacuum expectation values of the commutators of j±i (k) = [j0i (k) ± jσ

i (k)/vi]/2

from the correlation functions, and then, under some very general further assumptions,

the algebra of the operators themselves

[j+i (k), j+

j (k′)] = |ηi|kδi,jδk,−k′ , [H, j+i (k)] = ckj+

i . (6.51)

For sign(vi)sign(k) < 0, the operator j+i (k) acts as an annihilation operator. For sign(vi)sign(k) >

0, it generates the harmonic spectrum of H . The operator j−i (k) acts as a null operator.

We recognize the algebra of the j+i (k) (6.51) as a U(1)-Kac-Moody algebra. Unlike

Eq. (3.169), however, the prefactor of the right-hand side is |ηi| rather than unity. This

suggests that our edge excitations on each branch i are described by a U(1)-Kac-Moody

algebra with a central charge c = |ηi| = q2i . Following our discussion in Section 3.6, we

then can construct both an effective action as a bilinear in boson currents j±i and in terms

of chiral fermions Ψi coupled to a gauge field, and the latter reads

Sedge = i∑

i

∫

dtdσΨ†i [(∂t + iqiδA0) + vi(∂σ + iqiδAσ)] Ψi (6.52)

with charges qi satisfying the sum rule∑

i

ηi =∑

i

sign(vi)q2i = νe2 . (6.53)

For the integer effect (ν integer), the charges are integer i.e. the fermions describe real

electrons, but for the fractional quantum Hall effect, they are irrational in general. If

there is a single branch, we have qi =√νe. The fermions rather refer to solitons than real

electrons. So long as all edge excitations move in the same direction, there is no possibility

to open a mass gap. Only when velocities have different signs (an issue we touch upon

below) can a gap be opened, as a consequence of backward and Umklapp scattering. In

the same way, it should be apparent from the discussion of impurity scattering in Section

4.6 that the edge excitations travelling in the same direction, are not sensitive to scattering

by impurities.

For practical calculations, of course, the boson representation is more convenient, and

the Hamiltonian corresponding to the boson action is

H =∑

i

∑

k

πvi

q2i

ρi(k)ρi(−k) . (6.54)

130

There may be also interactions between different excitations, i.e.

H → H + δH , δH =∑

ij

∑

k

gijρi(k)ρj(−k) . (6.55)

This has the structure of the Luttinger Hamiltonian (3.1) with g2 and g4 processes, depend-

ing on the sign of the velocities of the branches, or of its multicomponent generalization

(6.5). In general, the properties will be different, however, because c 6= 1. (6.55) can be

diagonalized by a Bogoliubov transformation, leading to new operators ρi, renormalized

velocities vi, and to renormalized charges qi =∑

j Uijqj where (U)ij is the transforma-

tion matrix. It is these renormalized charges and velocities which are experimentally

measurable in edge magnetoplasmon excitations. Fractional charges can also be found

in the integer effect when several branches of excitations are present. Wen showed that

the renormalized fractional charges can be measured experimentally as the strength of

the peaks in the absorption spectrum of a rotating electric field. Also the width of the

resonances is related through the charges to the edge resistance.

Up to now, we have only considered particle-hole excitations out of the Fermi sea on

the edges, i.e. we have restricted to the charge-zero sector of the theory. We now consider

the charge excitations on the edges, to give a more systematic basis to the notion of

irrational charges, and to construct a relation between the physical fermions Ψ and the

bosons living on the edges. We assume a single excitation branch for the moment with

q =√ν. There is thus a definite chirality. The fermions act as charge-raising operators

[Ψ, Q] = eΨ , Q =∫

dσj0(σ) . (6.56)

The Hilbert space is therefore composed of sectors with charge Q, and within these sectors,

j+ creates particle-hole excitations. Within each sector Q, it generates the Fock space

of the harmonic oscillators defined by the U(1)-Kac-Moody algebra (6.51). One can now

introduce a bosonic field ϕ(x) via the current and charge

jα(t, σ) =

√ν

2πǫαβ∂βϕ(t, σ) , Q =

√νNsign v . (6.57)

The charge-raising operators of a chiral boson theory are in general, Eq. (3.175)

Ψ(x) =: eiγϕ(x) : . (6.58)

From the requirement that they anticommute, we derive γ2 = 2n + 1, an odd integer.

Moreover, Ψ must carry a unit charge. From [Q,Ψ] we find that the charge of Ψ is γ√ν

which must equal unity. This imposes a restriction on the filling fractions ν which can be

described by a single branch of excitations ν = 1/(2n+ 1). All other filling fractions must

possess more than one edge excitation – a conclusion also verified in numerical calculations

[264]. But even in the single-branch situation, a physical electron carrying unit charge,

added to the edge, is fragmented into solitonic excitations of charge√ν. However, the

charges of excited states are integers, not multiples of√ν.

In principle, one can now calculate all the correlation functions on the edge. Due to

the fractional charges, or equivalently to the central charge being different from unity,

131

anomalous powers arise even in the one-branch situation, contrary to the standard Lut-

tinger liquid of Chapter 3. This can be seen quite easily from (6.58) where the fractional

charge ν = K plays the same role as the stiffness constant played in Chapter 3. The map-

ping is provided by comparing to Eq. (3.67). As an example, the single-particle Green

function is

〈Ψ(t, σ)Ψ†(0, 0)〉 ∼(

i

t + σ

)1/ν

. (6.59)

Rewriting this in the form of a standard Luttinger liquid, one concludes that the chiral

single-particle exponent is

αchiral =1

ν− 1 = 2n (6.60)

for a filling fraction ν = 1/(2n + 1). The scaling relation between α and K in a chiral

Luttinger liquid is different from the non-chiral system. The remarkable fact here is that

the exponents become universal and are fully determined by the filling of the Landau

levels. This means that one can precisely predict the exponents of the correlation functions

probed by specific experiments. Moreover, ν being a topological invariant, the exponents

are expected to be robust against perturbations. Wen has proposed the label “chiral

Luttinger liquid” for the low-energy physics of the quantum Hall edge states.

An interesting generalization, which could also be relevant for situations with several

edges with opposite velocities, is provided by considering the edge states on a cylinder

threaded by the magnetic flux. There are now two edges with excitations moving in

opposite directions, and the Luttinger liquid is no longer chiral. Of course, it can be built

on the chiral Luttinger liquid of a disk, and the structure of the theory is quite similar

to the previous one. There are two important differences, however: (i) charge excitations

can be transferred between the edges, which complicates somewhat the quantization rules

relating γ in (6.58) to the filling fraction ν; (ii) if the edges are not too far from each

other, tunneling both of electrons and of Laughlin quasi-particles, the fractionally charged

objects introduced earlier, may take place between them. Electron tunneling can be

described by the operator

Htunnel = g∫

dx cos

[

ϕ(x)√ν

]

, (6.61)

which is isomorphic in form to our the backscattering operator (4.6). The scaling dimen-

sion of this operator is 2 − 1/ν, and the operator is irrelevant for ν < 1/2 while it is

relevant for ν > 1/2. This would imply that in the integer effect (ν = 1), a gap could

open on the edges when they are brought close enough together. On the other hand, for

the fractional effect ν = 1/(2n + 1) ≤ 1/3, the electron tunneling operator is irrelevant.

Tunneling of Laughlin quasi-particles is possible because the two edges are connected by

the quantum Hall fluid (and not vacuum), and described by an operator (6.61) where,

however, the factor 1/√ν is replaced by

√ν [262]. This operator is always relevant. An

important problem, however, is that of a local constriction on a Quantum Hall cylinder:

here the inter-edge tunneling only takes place at x = 0, and the dimension of this operator

is then 1− ν. It is marginal in the integer effect and relevant for all fractional single-edge

132

situations. The problem can also be formulated in terms of scattering off impurities in a

non-chiral Luttinger liquid [169], and out conclusion agrees with the analysis of Section

4.6.

The dynamical excitations on the edges have a very rich structure which reflects the

topological order in the quantum Hall effect. Wen [174, 262] and others [263] have devel-

oped here a chiral Luttinger liquid theory as a framework for a detailed description of their

properties. It is similar to the Luttinger liquid discussed in the preceding chapters but

differs (at least) in one important way: the charges of the edge excitations are fractional

(or irrational), and the universality classes of the chiral and standard Luttinger liquids

are different: the central charge describing the edge excitations is different from unity.

133

Chapter 7

The normal state of

quasi-one-dimensional metals – a

Luttinger liquid?

A wide variety of materials with low-dimensional structural and electronic properties is

available now, and experimentalists have used them to search for Luttinger liquid corre-

lations. In the main body of this chapter, we shall concentrate on the quasi-1D organic

conductors such as TTF − TCNQ and superconductors like (TMTSF )2X or the re-

lated (nonsuperconducting) series (TMTTF )2X. We summarize evidence that electronic

correlations are important in these materials, that in their normal state, they are suf-

ficiently anisotropic so that 1D models of interacting electrons are indeed relevant for

their description, and that experiments can be interpreted consistently within the theo-

retical framework set up in this article. At the end, we briefly touch upon semiconductor

heterostructures, a new and rapidly growing branch in the field of correlated 1D electrons.

7.1 Organic conductors and superconductors

Tetrathiafulvalene-tetracyanoquinodimethane (TTF − TCNQ) crystalizes in a herring-

bone pattern of two segregated stacks of TTF and TCNQ molecules, respectively. A

charge transfer from the TTF to the TCNQ molecules of 0.57 electron/molecule produces

partially filled electron- and hole-like bands, i.e. the material behaves as a two-chain

conductor.

Between 54K and 38K, TTF − TCNQ undergoes a series of phase transitions into a

CDW state, accompanied by a periodic lattice modulation due to electron-phonon cou-

pling. Although the traditional picture due to Peierls would consider electron-phonon

interaction as the driving force of such a CDW transition [5, 265], the actual situation is

more complicated, probably radically different.

In fact, there is ample evidence for important repulsive interactions on both chains. In

X-ray experiments, diffuse X-ray scattering is not only detected at 2kF but surprisingly

also at 4kF , even up to very high temperature [266, 267]. While 2kF -fluctuations are

134

expected as precursors of the Peierls transition [265], the existence of 4kF fluctuations

can only be explained assuming sizable Coulomb correlations [58], as can be seen from

comparing the exponents of the 2kF - and 4kF -CDW correlation functions (3.92) and

(3.93). Notice from Eqs. (4.65) that coupling to lattice phonons (Y(ph)2 = 0) reduces

Kρ. When electronic correlations are dominant, phonons can enhance them further, and

they certainly outweigh the logarithmic “advantage” of the SDWs against the 2kF -CDWs.

The Pauli susceptibility is significantly enhanced over the free electron value [268, 269]

and the finite frequency optical conductivity is much larger than the dc-conductivity [167].

Further evidence for Coulomb correlations stems from the analysis of systematic variations

of physical properties through entire families [270] of closely related compounds such as

(NMP )x(Phen)1−x(TCNQ) [110, 271] or the 1 : 2 − TCNQ salts [272].

There is thus an alternative, well supported view that the CDWs in TTF − TCNQ

are, in fact the consequence of electronic correlations rather than of electron-phonon inter-

action; the latter then would just probe the electronic fluctuations without feeding back

on them in any significant manner, and couple the preformed charge density modulation

into the lattice and make it visible to X-rays. This is different from other CDW systems

to be discussed in Section 7.2 below.

Closely related are the single-chain conductors (TMTSF )2X and (TMTTF )2X (“Bech-

gaard salts”), where TMTSF stands for the molecule tetramethyl-tetraselenafulvalene.

A sketch of this molecule and of the stacking pattern, immediately suggestive of one-

dimensionality, is shown in Figure 7.1. (TMTSF )2PF6 undergoes a metal–insulator

transition into a SDW state at ambient pressure at TSDW = 12K. Evidence for SDWs is

provided by peculiar NMR relaxation behaviour [15] but most convincingly by observation

of the nonlinear conductivity associated with a sliding SDW [273]. Under 12 kbar pres-

sure, however, superconductivity can be stabilized at Tc = 0.9K [274]. Other members

of the family show superconductivity, too [275]. By substituting the four selenium atoms

by sulfur, one obtains (TMTTF )2X. Generically, these sulfur-based systems undergo

a charge localization transition (“Wigner crystallization”) around 200K (seen e.g. as a

minimum in the resistivity) and reduce to an effective spin chain below. Finally, around

20 K, one observes spin-Peierls transitions into a spin-singlet state, accompanied by a

lattice deformation [23]. However, by applying pressure, a behaviour more akin to the

SDW state of (TMTSF )2PF6 can be obtained.

The importance of Coulomb interactions in the (TMTSF )2X and (TMTTF )2X is

more readily apparent than in TTF − TCNQ. We discussed various Luttinger liquid

correlation functions in Chapter 4, and SDW correlations require repulsive interactions.

In the (TMTTF )2X-series, the Coulomb repulsion is even stronger than in (TMTSF )2X:

the charge localization transition around 200K can be interpreted as a transition into a

4kF -CDW [58, 89, 110]. Other properties indicate strong Coulomb interaction, too. The

Pauli susceptibility of the conduction electrons is enhanced considerably (×3 − 5) with

respect to a simple band picture [276]. Moreover, it is temperature dependent and, at low

temperature, close to what is expected for a 1D antiferromagnet [23]. Optical properties

are also unconventional. Apparently it is observed that σ(ω) in the infrared is higher

than the dc-conductivity which is not compatible with free electrons and suggests rather

135

localized charges. In these infrared measurements one also observes totally symmetric

molecular vibrations [277, 278]. These vibrations are IR-forbidden for free electrons but

can be activated by local charge modulations such as a CDW [279]. In the (TMTSF )2X

and (TMTTF )2X such a CDW would be at 4kF and the observation of the activated

vibrations in the IR then suggests a considerable degree of charge localization. Strong

electronic repulsion generates antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations which can be, and have

been, observed in NMR [280, 281]. There is also a detailed theory for the analysis of these

experiments which lends further support to a strongly correlated picture for the electrons

in the Bechgaard salts [282, 283].

The basic building blocks of the materials discussed in the preceding section are large

planar molecules with π-orbitals directed out of the molecular plane. In general, the lat-

tice parameters, the lattice dynamics, and the elastic constants are anisotropic though

not strongly so, and are best viewed as three-dimensional [15]. The electronic properties,

however, are strongly anisotropic. Essentially, the overlap between wave functions on

neighbouring molecules, and matrix elements of a Hamiltonian between them, both de-

pend exponentially on the intermolecular separation: minor variations in the structure are

then dramatically amplified in the electron dynamics. The sensitive dependence on the

intermolecular distances is further amplified by the strong directionality of many of the

molecular orbitals involved. However, relatively short distances between Se or S atoms

in the (TMTSF )2X and (TMTTF )2X give nonnegligible interstack contacts and some

effectively 2D character to the (TMTSF )2X salts [284].

The central question is therefore if the Fermi surface of these organic conductors is

closer to the parallel sheets characterizing 1D or to the cylinder obtained for layered

2D materials, i.e. open vs. closed orbits, and if, for given external parameters (T, P ),

the electrons hop coherently or not from one chain to its neighbour. There seems to

be general agreement [23] that the picture of two sheets, warped by the finite hopping

integrals perpendicular to the chains, is most appropriate. Values often used are t‖ ≡ ta =

150 . . . 200meV , t⊥ ≡ tb = 20 . . . 30meV , and tc < tb/10 for (TMTSF )2X [23] although

next-nearest-neighbour transfer integrals also seem to play some role [284]. Apparently

TTF −TCNQ is significantly more anisotropic and the Fermi surface has been suggested

to consist out of two parallel, diffuse sheets. Representative transfer integrals are t‖ =

110meV for the TCNQ chain, t‖ = 50meV for TTF [15], and t⊥ as low as 5meV [285].

Transport measurements probe the anisotropy and coherence of the electron dynamics.

In optical absorption, a pronounced plasma edge in the 1eV -range is observed for electric

fields polarized parallel to the chain axis both in TTF −TCNQ and (TMTSF )2X, indi-

cating band formation along the chains, and longitudinal bandwidths of the order of 1eV

have been derived within simple tight-binding models. In (TMTSF )2PF6, a transverse

plasma edge at about 0.1eV , implying coherent perpendicular transport, is observed only

at T = 25K [15]. In TTF −TCNQ, to the best of the author’s knowledge, the establish-

ment of a transverse plasma edge has never been observed. These measurements support

the picture of a very anisotropic band and rule out the possibility of a closed Fermi surface

in these materials.

Depending on the magnitude of τ‖t⊥/h, the transverse transport can be either coherent

136

or diffusive. Here τ‖ is the on-chain collision time after which the electron wave function

looses its coherence, i.e. a measure of cleanliness, and t⊥ < t‖ is assumed. The transverse

escape rate 1/τ⊥ ≈ 2πτ‖t2⊥/h can be measured by NMR [286]. The long-wavelength spin

fluctuations on the chains are certainly diffusive and then described by a 1D random walk

which gives a 1/√ωe power spectrum to the NMR relaxation rate 1/T1T and strong field-

dependent deviations from the Korringa law through the electronic Larmor frequency

ωe. At low-fields, the spin dynamics becomes 3D and 1/T1T is field independent. A

crossover is observed for ωeτ⊥ ≈ 1 in TTF − TCNQ [286] and (TMTSF )2X [287]. τ‖can be estimated e.g. from conductivity. Putting things together, one concludes that, in

TTF − TCNQ, the perpendicular transport is always diffusive while in (TMTSF )2PF6,

it is diffusive at higher temperature but transverse coherence is established at lower tem-

peratures. One also obtains the above values of t⊥. This suggests that theories discussing

the establishment of transverse coherence in the single- and two-particle dynamics can be

critically tested here.

The information available points towards a picture of strong Coulomb interaction and

pronounced one-dimensionality. What is the experimental evidence in favour of Lut-

tinger liquid behaviour in these “metals”? The instabilities observed at low temperatures

are certainly suggestive of 1D physics. Of course, they do not tell us much about the

normal-state properties; still the observation of high-temperature 4kF -CDW fluctuations

in TTF − TCNQ [266, 267] places constraints on the effective Luttinger parameters:

Kρ < 1/2 for their divergence, and Kρ < 1/3 for them being stronger than the 2kF -CDWs.

These low values of Kρ indicate that a simple Hubbard model is certainly inappropriate

for the description of this compound, and that longer range interactions cannot be ne-

glected. The optical spectrum of TTF − TCNQ is very unusual (Figure 7.2). There is

a pronounced pseudogap present already at 85 K, i.e. far above the Peierls temperature,

which deepens as the temperature is lowered into the CDW phase. It is tempting to

connect this with the pseudogap observed in the density of states [167], and in fact, σ(ω)

is not incompatible with the expression (4.75) derived by Ogata and Anderson [166], if

the large α-values implied by the 4kF -fluctuations are inserted.

In the (TMTSF )2X-materials, NMR has uncovered anomalous correlations [280, 281]

(Figure 7.3). The spin-lattice relaxation rate T−11 strongly deviates from the Korringa

law T−11 ∝ T at lower temperatures. This is believed to result from the temperature

dependent SDW-correlations. In fact, T−11 contains two contributions, from the long-

wavelength and the 2kF -spin-fluctuations: T−11 ∝ T +T 1−αSDW = T +TKρ . Here, we have

a quantity which can give direct information on Kρ! Below a certain temperature T0, the

SDW contribution TKρ dominates over the long-wavelength part T . From the latest work

[281], one deduces Kρ ∼ 0.15. This is a surprisingly big value, and again indicates effective

strong and long-range interactions. One problem here, in contrast to TTF − TCNQ is

that the 4kF -fluctuations predicted in this limit, are not observed in X-rays (but they are

neither in the (TMTTF )2X-series where 4kF -localization is established quite firmly).

Similar values of Kρ are suggested by the photoemission experiments shown in Figure

7.4. This experiment measures the occupied (ω < 0) part of the single-particle density of

states N(ω) (3.87). There is no spectral weight at the Fermi surface, and it rises smoothly

137

as one goes to lower energies. The origin of the peak at −1eV is not clear – this scale

lies at the lower edge of the valence band, or even below. Close to the Fermi energy,

the smooth variation is compatible with the Luttinger liquid form |ω|α if one assumes an

exponent α > 1. The NMR-Kρ = 0.15 implies α ∼ 1.25, and this value describes the data

quite well.

Summarizing, there are experimental indications in favour of Luttinger liquid correla-

tions in these quasi-1D organic conductors which, if taken serious, would place them in

the limit of strong, long-range effective interactions. The experiments described probe,

however, only the anomalous operator-dimensions. There has been no successful attempt

to measure charge-spin separation. From Section 3.4, this would require angle-resolved

photoemission or inelastic neutron scattering. However, the relevance of a Luttinger liq-

uid description, even within a 1D framework, has been questioned [289]. In fact, the

(TMTSF )2X-materials are slightly dimerized, and therefore the Fermi level lies in an ef-

fectively half-filled subband, where even weak interactions can lead to charge localization

and an associated charge gap, cf. Chapter 5. The unusual phenomena observed would, in

this view, either be extrinsic or mainly reflect the consequences of a Mott transition. At

the time of writing, the controversy over the appropriate model for describing the organic

conductors is pretty open.

7.2 Inorganic charge density wave materials

Many inorganic crystals, such as e. g. K0.3MoO3, (TaSe4)2I, NbSe3 etc. undergo, at tem-

peratures between 50K and 250K, a Peierls transition into a CDW ground state, giving

rise to fascinating nonlinear transport phenomena [290]. Apart NbSe3 which apparently

is quite 3D and where pieces of a Fermi surface persist even into the CDW state, the

materials, generically, are rather 1D and do not show indications of strong electronic

correlations.

The driving mechanism for CDW formation is the electron-phonon interaction [5],

and accordingly, this interaction is supposed to be the dominant one in these materials.

Considerable success in describing their normal state properties has been achieved based

on the model of a fluctuating Peierls insulator [291]. The basic idea here is that 1D

fluctuations will lower the actually observed critical temperature TP below the 1D mean-

field temperature TMFP by as much as a factor of 4− 5. In the fluctuation regime, there is

a pseudo-gap in the electronic density of states which develops into a real gap only at TP

and which accounts for the unusual thermodynamic and transport properties above TP .

There is no pseudo-gap left beyond TMFP .

The fluctuating Peierls insulator model is a single-particle picture, i.e. charge and

spin degrees of freedom behave symmetrically. This is observed in some materials, such

as (TaSe4)2I, but not in others, e.g. K0.3MoO3, where the dc-conductivity is totally

unaffected by the conjectured pseudo-gap while the susceptibility shows temperature de-

pendence reminiscent of thermal activation. Moreover, the transition in conductivity

is extremely sharp – but gradual in susceptibility [292]. The Lee-Rice-Anderson picture

138

seems to imply that above TMFP the system reduces to a normal metal. The corresponding

temperature-independent Pauli susceptibility above TMFP has, however, not been observed

in any of the 1D CDW materials.

Photoemission experiments question the validity of the picture of a fluctuating Peierls

insulator. As in the organic conductors, the single-particle density of states shows no

significant weight at the Fermi energy in the blue bronze K0.3MoO3, and appreciable

spectral weight is only found a sizable fraction of an eV below [293]. Angle-resolved

studies on related materials either show a fading away of the signal as the Fermi surface is

approached [294], or weight dispersing some finite energy below EF [295]. Clearly, there

have been speculations about 1D correlations at the origin of the mysterious behaviour.

Experimental evidence points against simple Luttinger liquid behaviour in these CDW

materials. On the other hand, our renormalization group analysis (4.65) in Section 4.5

shows that, in such a 1D scenario, a spin gap ∆σ must open as a precursor of CDW

formation while the charge fluctuations remain massless in strictly 1D. Such a system is in

the Luther-Emery universality class [186]. The Pauli susceptibility rising with increasing

temperature, found in all CDW materials, can be interpreted as evidence for such a spin

gap. The conductivity of the blue bronze K0.3MoO3 also provides evidence for massless

charge fluctuations [292]. One can compute, at least the diagonal part of the single-particle

density of states for this model and finds [53]

N(ω) ≈ Θ(|ω| − ∆σ)(|ω| − ∆σ)2γρ , (7.1)

where γρ has been defined in (3.84). Such a behaviour is consistent with the photoemission

properties of the blue bronzes. We note, however, that (i) optical experiments [296] are

in excellent agreement with the fluctuating-Peierls-insulator model when one goes beyond

the Lee-Rice-Anderson treatment and includes the thermally excited motion of the lattice

[297], and their precise relation to the photoemission experiments is not understood to

date; (ii) there is no evidence for charge-spin separation in CDW-materials other than

K0.3MoO3 which therefore are not in the Luther-Emery universality class.

Similar unusual photoemission behaviour: absence of spectral weight at the Fermi

surface and a smooth rise below, has also been reported for another inorganic 1D material,

BaV S3 [298].

7.3 Semiconductor heterostructures

Semiconductor heterostructures may open a wide new field for the study of 1D interacting

electrons, in regimes usually inaccessible to organic crystals. There are two principal

directions: (i) quantum wires and (ii) quantum Hall effect edge states.

Traditionally, a 2D electron gas is induced at interfaces in such structures by applying

a gate voltage across the structure. Very recent progress has allowed the fabrication of

narrow channels in the heterostructures where the electrons can be confined [299] into a

quantum wire. The electronic system can be made truly one-dimensional by appropriate

design of the structure. Periodic conductance oscillations are observed as a function of the

139

carrier density, and it has been speculated that they could be either due to the formation

of a charge density wave or of a Wigner crystal [299]. Wigner crystal formation, i.e. the

formation of 4kF -CDWs has been discussed in Chapter 4 [89, 90, 112, 148]. Furthermore,

the 1D channel can be constricted, and we can verify the predictions for transport through

an impurity, discussed in Section 4.6.

Such a constriction can also be built on samples showing the quantum Hall effect.

From Section 6.3, we know that the edge states are described as chiral Luttinger liquids.

For the ν = 1/3 quantum Hall state where we have a single edge, the Luttinger stiffness

constant is K = ν = 1/3. The exponents of all correlation functions are fully determined

by the filling-factor ν of the Landau levels! Eq. (4.82) shows that the corrections to the

Luttinger liquid conductance diverge as T → 0. An equation equivalent for the opposite

case, tunneling across the constriction, predicts the tunneling conductance across the

constriction to vary as G(T ) ∼ T 4 [169]. Such an experiment has been performed [300],

and the result shown in Figure 7.5 is in accurate agreement with the theoretical prediction.

For comparison, a temperature independent conductance is expected for a Fermi liquid

(K = 1), and is indeed found in the integer ν = 1-state [300]. The scaling with applied

point-contact voltage is similar. Again, for the ν = 1/3-state, a strong variation with

voltage is found while the variation for ν = 1 is much weaker [300]. It would be very

interesting to see if such constrictions can also be used to separate charge and spin of the

electrons on the two sides, as suggested in Section 4.6.

140

Chapter 8

Summary

We have gone a long way from the simplest 1D model Hamiltonian, the Luttinger model,

to exotic correlations in complicated materials, often uncovered only under extreme con-

ditions. It is certainly useful to briefly summarize the essential steps and achievements.

Fermi liquid theory based on a quasi-particle picture as in higher dimensions, does not

work in 1D because of two new features with respect to 3D: a logarithmic divergence in

the particle-hole bubble, due to the perfect nesting of the 1D Fermi surface, and because

of charge-spin separation in 1D. Both effects are connected to the fact that momentum

transfer cannot be neglected in the scattering processes in 1D.

Quasi-particles are unstable in 1D, and the elementary excitations are bosonic col-

lective charge and spin fluctuations. The Luttinger model incorporates these essential

features and can therefore be taken as a basis for the description of gapless 1D quantum

systems. This model has been solved by several methods: bosonization, equation of mo-

tion and Green’s function techniques, conformal field theory. All of them are related to

the symmetries and conservation laws of the 1D Fermi surface, but incorporate them in a

different manner. While the use of Ward identities in the Green’s function method empha-

sizes strong similarities to the Fermi liquid, bosonization rather displays the differences.

In particular, we used bosonization to compute correlation functions. They decay as non-

universal power-laws, and the scaling relations between their exponents are parameterized

by a single effective coupling constant Kν per degree of freedom. In addition, there is a

renormalized velocity of each collective mode. It renormalizes the thermodynamic and

transport properties, but its most spectacular consequence, charge-spin separation, is only

visible in dynamical correlations at large wave-vector, such as the single-particle spectral

function close to kF or the charge and spin structure factors at 2kF .

The effective coupling constant is defined from the velocities associated with three

different low-energy excitations: particle-hole excitations, charge (±kF -symmetric addi-

tion of particles) and current (kF ↔ −kF -transfer of particle) excitations, and thus from

the eigenvalue spectrum alone. This structure persists in a low-energy subspace of more

complicated models containing nonlinear dispersion, (irrelevant) large-momentum trans-

fer scattering, coupling to external degrees of freedom, etc., and carries to the notion of

a “Luttinger liquid”. It implies that the low-energy properties of these models are de-

scribed by a renormalized Luttinger model, provided their excitations are gapless. The

141

Luttinger liquid is the universality class of these gapless 1D quantum systems. By a

controlled mapping of 1D models ranging from the Hubbard model to electron-phonon

systems, an asymptotically exact solution of the 1D many-body problem is achieved. We

have discussed several procedures, some applicable only where an exact solution by Bethe

Ansatz is possible, others generally applicable and therefore also suited for non-soluble

models. We often used renormalization group which is not as powerful as methods based

on an exact eigenvalue spectrum because it is based on perturbative developments and

thus limited to weak coupling. While failing quantitatively at stronger coupling, most

of its predictions are qualitatively valid beyond the weak-coupling range. In particular,

it allows to derive logarithmic corrections to correlation functions which lift the unphys-

ical degeneracies implied by their exponents. Moreover, it is flexible enough to allow

a treatment of problems beyond the reach of both exact and numerical solutions such

as electron-phonon coupling and scattering off impurities. It is therefore essential for

a determination of transport properties, to which we devoted much space. Of course,

Luttinger liquid behaviour is also found in multi-band and multi-component models, and

most methods generalize straightforwardly to these problems.

Not all 1D fermion systems are Luttinger liquids. When backward or Umklapp scat-

tering operators become relevant, as they do for attractive interactions or commensurate

band-fillings, respectively, a gap opens in the spin or in the charge channel. Passing back

and forth between strong- and effective weak-coupling models, a detailed picture of their

properties can be constructed. We have done this in particular for the Mott transition in

commensurate, repulsively interacting systems, and emphasized phase diagrams, critical

interaction strengths, and the scaling behaviour of transport properties and correlations.

The solution of the Luttinger, Hubbard and other models relies in an essential way on

the strong conservation laws provided by the small phase space of 1D. An important prob-

lem therefore is the stability of the Luttinger liquid with respect to transverse coupling.

Coupling by interchain Coulomb interaction often gives only quantitative modifications of

the 1D behaviour, except for backscattering which can stabilize charge density wave cor-

relations into a long-range ordered phase. Interchain tunneling on the other hand can lead

to transverse coherence either in the single- or in the two-particle dynamics, depending on

the on-chain correlations, and stabilize a variety of phases. If a single-particle crossover

occurs first, as the temperature is lowered, the Peierls-Cooper interference in destroyed,

and a low-temperature phase transition may take place in one channel alone. Despite

intense research, the normal-state properties above such a transition, are not fully clear

to date. There seems to be agreement that charge-spin separation is an essential feature

in this situation, but there is disagreement on the extent to which it confines the electron

dynamics onto a single chain. A two-particle crossover may occur before the single-particle

one, and the on-chain correlations are then propagated by transverse particle-particle or

particle-hole pair hopping, leading again to low-temperature phase transitions. Here, the

normal state is of 1D Luttinger type. An important problem is the Hubbard model on two

or more coupled chains, and at least the two-chain variant provides evidence for possible

superconducting correlations at repulsive interactions.

Many experiments have provided evidence for Luttinger liquid correlations in low-

142

dimensional materials, although there is often some controversy about their precise inter-

pretation. Quasi-1D organic conductors and superconductors, for example, show (TTF −TCNQ) diffuse X-ray scattering at 2kF and 4kF and strongly depressed low-frequency

optical conductivity, and others ((TMTSF )2X) power-law deviations from the Korringa

law in NMR, and vanishing spectral weight at the Fermi surface in photoemission. These

experiments point towards really strong, and in particular long-range, interactions. In-

strumental to this conclusion are bounds on the Luttinger coupling constants Kν derived

from mapping various lattice models onto the Luttinger model. Suggesting single-particle

exponents α in excess of unity, in fact, there are no known lattice models which naturally

would provide values so big. This certainly is a major problem for future research and for

the modelling of these materials.

Similarly surprising is the absence of spectral weight at EF in inorganic charge density

wave systems although these are believed to be dominated by electron-phonon coupling.

From our discussion of phonon-coupled Luttinger liquids, we have suggested that they fall

into the Luther-Emery universality class, and that spin gap formation is quite generally a

precursor of charge density wave formation. Studies of spectral functions for these models

are certainly called for.

Finally, edge state transport in the fractional quantum Hall effect is an exciting new

area of low-dimensional physics. We have discussed how these gapless edges can be

modelled as chiral Luttinger liquids. While they are similar to those discussed before,

having a central charge c 6= 1, they fall into a different universality class. They also have

power-law correlations, but their charges in general are irrational. Still, much of what has

been said about correlation functions and transport for the normal Luttinger liquid carries

over to the chiral variant. The remarkable feature here is that, at least for the single-edge

situations, the renormalized coupling constant K is fully determined by the Landau level

filling fraction K = ν, and therefore all correlation exponents (i) are known in advance,

and (ii) can be tuned accurately by varying ν. A recent experiment on tunneling through

a barrier on the edges at ν = 1/3 is in agreement with the chiral Luttinger prediction and

apparently provides a first evidence for the relevance of this picture.

Acknowledgements

I should like to thank the following colleagues for stimulating interaction, helpful sug-

gestions, criticism, and essential support, often over many years: Jim Allen, Natan An-

drei, Claude Bourbonnais, Sergei Brazovskii, Helmut Buttner, David Campbell, Laurent

Caron, Michele Fabrizio, Florian Gebhard (especially for many constructive comments on

the present article), Thierry Giamarchi, Daniel Malterre, Thierry Martin, Eugene Mele,

Philippe Nozieres, Jurgen Parisi, Jean-Paul Pouget, Dierk Rainer, Mario Rasetti and the

Institute for Scientific Interchange in Torino, Heinz Schulz, Markus Schwoerer, Andre-

Marie Tremblay, Joe Wheatley. The responsibility for flaws in this article is, however,

entirely mine. My research is supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through

SFB 279–B4.

143

Bibliography

[1] L. D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JETP 3, 920 (1957); 5, 101 (1957); 8, 70 (1959).

[2] P. Nozieres, Interacting Fermi Systems, W. A. Benjamin Inc, New York (1964).

[3] F. D. M. Haldane, J. Phys. C 14, 2585 (1981).

[4] J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. 119, 1153 (1960).

[5] R. Peierls, Quantum Theory of Solids, Oxford University Press, London (1955).

[6] J. Bardeen, L. N. Copper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957).

[7] J. M. Luttinger, J. Math. Phys. 4, 1154 (1963).

[8] S. Tomonaga, Prog. Theor. Phys. 5, 544 (1950).

[9] D. C. Mattis and E. H. Lieb, J. Math. Phys. 6, 304 (1963).

[10] K. B. Efetov and A. I. Larkin, Sov. Phys. JETP 42, 390 (1976).

[11] P. W. Anderson and Y. R. Ren, Proceedings of the Los Alamos Conference on High-

Tc-Superconductivity, Addison Wesley Publ. Comp., 1990, p. 3; P. W. Anderson,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1839 and 65, 2306 (1990).

[12] J. R. Engelbrecht and M. Randeria, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1032 (1990); D. Coffey

and K. S. Bedell, ibid. 71, 1043 (1993).

[13] C. M. Varma, P. B. Littlewood, S. Schmitt-Rink, E. Abrahams, and A. E. Rucken-

stein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1996 (1989); N. Mitani and S. Kurihara, Physica C 192,

230 (1992).

[14] I. Perakis, C. M. Varma, and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3467 (1993);

G.-M. Zhang and L. Yu, ibid. 72, 2474 (1994); C. Sire, C. M. Varma, A. E. Rucken-

stein, and T. Giamarchi, ibid. p. 2478. See also G. M. Eliashberg, JETP Lett. 46,

S81 (1988); B. R. Alascio and C. R. Proetto, Sol. St. Comm. 75, 217 (1990).

[15] D. Jerome and H. J. Schulz, Adv. Phys. 31, 299 (1982).

[16] Proceedings of recent conferences on Synthetic Metals, e. g. Synth. Met. 27 (1988)

– 29 (1989); 41 – 43 (1991); 55 – 57 (1993); 69 – 71 (1995).

144

[17] P. Nozieres and A. Blandin, J. Phys. (Paris) 41, 193 (1980); N. Andrei and C.

Destri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 364 (1984); A. W. W. Ludwig and I. Affleck, Phys.

Rev. Lett. 67, 3160 (1991).

[18] J. Solyom, Adv. Phys. 28, 201 (1979).

[19] V. J. Emery, in Highly Conducting One-Dimensional Solids, ed. by J. T. Devreese,

R. E. Evrard, and V. E. van Doren, Plenum Press, New York (1979).

[20] I. Affleck, in: Fields, Strings, and Critical Phenomena, ed. by E. Brezin and J.

Zinn-Justin, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, 1989.

[21] Yu. A. Firsov, V. N. Prigodin, and Chr. Seidel, Phys. Rep. 126, 245 (1985).

[22] C. Bourbonnais and L. G. Caron, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 5, 1033 (1991).

[23] D. Jerome, Science 252, 1509 (1991).

[24] J. M. Williams, A. J. Schultz, U. Geiser, K. D. Carlson, A. M. Kini, H. H. Wang,

W.-K. Kwok, M.-H. Whangbo, and J. E. Schirber, Science 252, 1501 (1991).

[25] Low-Dimensional Conductors and Superconductors, ed. by D. Jerome and L. G.

Caron, Plenum Press, New York, 1987.

[26] B. Sutherland, in Exactly Solvable Problems in Condensed Matter and Relativistic

Field Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics 242, 1 (1985).

[27] V. E. Korepin, N. M. Bogoliubov, and A. G. Izergin, Quantum Inverse Scattering

Method and Correlation Functions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.

[28] Yu. A. Izyumov and Yu. N. Skryabin, Statistical Mechanics of Magnetically Ordered

Systems, Consultants Bureau, New York, 1988, chapter 5.

[29] A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Nucl. Phys. B 241, 333

(1984); Fields, Strings, and Critical Phenomena, ed. by E. Brezin and J. Zinn-

Justin, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, 1989; C. Itzykson and J.-M.

Drouffe, Statistical Field Theory, Cambridge Universtity Press, Cambridge, 1989,

vol. 2; Y. Grandati, Ann. Phys. Fr. 17, 159 (1992); A. W. W. Ludwig, Trieste

Lectures 1992.

[30] Yu. A. Bychkov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 23, 489

(1966).

[31] R. Heidenreich, R. Seiler, and A. Uhlenbrock, J. Stat. Phys. 22, 27 (1980).

[32] A. Luther and I. Peschel, Phys. Rev. B 9, 2911 (1974).

[33] D. C. Mattis, J. Math. Phys. 15, 609 (1974).

145

[34] I. E. Dzyaloshinskii and A. I. Larkin, Sov. Phys. JETP 38, 202 (1974).

[35] H. U. Everts and H. Schulz, Sol. State Comm. 15, 1413 (1974).

[36] M. Apostol, J. Phys. C 16, 5937 (1983).

[37] This argument was suggested by Michele Fabrizio.

[38] R. de L. Kronig, Physica 2, 968 (1935).

[39] E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. 92, 455 (1984).

[40] S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. D 11, 3026 (1975).

[41] F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 1840 (1981).

[42] H. J. Schulz, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 5, 57 (1991).

[43] W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 133, A171 (1964); X. Zotos, P. Prelovsek, and I. Sega, Phys.

Rev. B 42, 8445 (1990); B. S. Shastry and B. Sutherland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 243

(1990).

[44] T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B 44, 2905 (1991).

[45] T. Giamarchi and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B 46, 9325 (1992).

[46] W. Metzner and C. Di Castro, Phys. Rev. B 47, 16107 (1993).

[47] R. Shankar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 4, 2371 (1990).

[48] H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2831 (1990).

[49] F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 1358 (1980).

[50] J. Voit, Phys. Rev. B 45, 4027 (1992).

[51] Y. Suzumura, Prog. Theor. Phys. 63, 5 (1980).

[52] H. J. Schulz, J. Phys. C 16, 6769 (1983).

[53] J. Voit, J. Phys. CM 5, 8305 (1993).

[54] K. Schonhammer and V. Meden, Phys. Rev. B 47, 16205 (1993) and (E) 48, 11521

(1993).

[55] A. Theumann, J. Math. Phys. 8, 2460 (1967).

[56] H. Gutfreund and M. Schick, Phys. Rev. 168, 418 (1968).

[57] M. Brech, J. Voit, and H. Buttner, Europhys. Lett. 12, 289 (1990).

[58] V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 107 (1976).

146

[59] J. Voit, Phys. Rev. B 47, 6740 (1993).

[60] V. Meden and K. Schonhammer, Phys. Rev. B 46, 15753 (1992).

[61] H. C. Fogedby, J. Phys. C 9, 3757 (1976).

[62] J. Voit, in the Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on The

Physics and Mathematical Physics of the Hubbard Model, San Sebastian, October

3–8, 1993, edited by D. Baeriswyl, D. K. Campbell, J. M. P. Carmelo, F. Guinea,

and E. Louis; Plenum Press, New York (1995).

[63] K. Schonhammer and V. Meden, Phys. Rev. B 48, 11390 (1993).

[64] J. Voit, Synth. Met. 70, 1015 (1995).

[65] K. Penc and J. Solyom, Phys. Rev. B 44, 12690 (1991).

[66] C. Di Castro and W. Metzner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 3852 (1991);

[67] D. K. K. Lee and Y. Chen, J. Phys. A 21, 4155 (1988).

[68] D. Schmeltzer, Phys. Rev. B 43, 8650 (1991).

[69] C. Mudry and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B 50, 11409 (1994).

[70] S.-K. Ma, Modern Theory of Critical Phenomena, Benjamin/Cummings Publ.

Comp., Reading, MA, 1976.

[71] H. W. J. Blote, J. L. Cardy, and M. P. Nightingale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 742 (1986);

I. Affleck, ibid. p. 746.

[72] D. Friedan, Z. Qiu, and S. Shenker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1575 (1984).

[73] J. Cardy, J. Phys. A 17, L385 (1984) and Nucl. Phys. B 270, [FS16], 186 (1986).

[74] A. D. Mironov and A. V. Zabrodin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 534 (1991).

[75] F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Lett. 81A, 153 (1981).

[76] S.-T. Chui and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 325 (1975).

[77] J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C 6, 1181 (1973); J. M. Kosterlitz, J.

Phys. C 7, 1046 (1974).

[78] J. Voit, J. Phys. C 21, L1141 (1988).

[79] T. Giamarchi and H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B 39, 4620 (1989).

[80] J. L. Black and V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. B 23, 429 (1981).

[81] H. A. Bethe, Z. Phys. 71, 205 (1931).

147

[82] J. Hubbard, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 240, 539 (1957); 243, 336 (1958); 276, 238 (163).

[83] E. H. Lieb and F. Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1445 (1968).

[84] P. A. Bares and G. Blatter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2567 (1990).

[85] B. Sutherland, Phys. Rev. B 12, 3795 (1975).

[86] P. Schlottmann, Phys. Rev. B 36, 5177 (1987).

[87] H. Bergknoff and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D 19, 3666 (1979).

[88] E. Lieb and W. Liniger, Phys. Rev. 130, 1616 (1963).

[89] J. Hubbard, Phys. Rev. B 17, 494 (1978).

[90] H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1864 (1993).

[91] S. Kivelson, W.-P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1899

(1987).

[92] A. Painelli and A. Girlando, in Ref. [93].

[93] Interacting Electrons in Reduced Dimensions, ed. by D. Baeriswyl and D. K. Camp-

bell, Plenum Press, New York (1989).

[94] D. K. Campbell, J. T. Gammel, and E. Y. Loh Jr. Phys. Rev. B 42, 475 (1990).

[95] F. Buzatu, Phys. Rev. B 49, 10176 (1994).

[96] J. E. Hirsch, Physica C 158, 326 (1989).

[97] F. C. Zhang and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 37, 3759 (1988); A. Fortunelli and A.

Painelli, Sol. State Comm. 89 771 (1994).

[98] K.-J.-B. Lee and P. Schlottmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2299 (1989); P. Schlottmann,

Phys. Rev. B 43, 3101 (1991).

[99] F. Gebhard and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 244 (1992); F. Gebhard,

A. Girndt, and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. B 49, 10926 (1994).

[100] P. Nozieres, Lecture Notes, College de France, Paris, 1991/92.

[101] H. Shiba, Phys. Rev. B 6, 930 (1972).

[102] M. Takahashi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 47, 69 (1972).

[103] T. B. Bahder and F. Woynarovich, Phys. Rev. B 33, 2114 (1986); K. Lee and P.

Schlottmann, Phys. Rev. B 38, 11566 (1988).

[104] A. A. Ovchinnikov, Sov. Phys. JETP 30, 1160 (1970).

148

[105] C. F. Coll III, Phys. Rev. B 9, 2150 (1974).

[106] F. D. M. Haldane and Yuhai Tu, unpublished.

[107] M. Ogata and H. Shiba, Phys. Rev. B 41, 2326 (1990).

[108] J. Carmelo and D. Baeriswyl, Phys. Rev. B 37, 7541 (1988).

[109] J. E. Hirsch and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B 27, 7169 (1983) and 29, 5554 (1984).

[110] S. Mazumdar and A. N. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 207, (1983); S. Mazumdar, S.

N. Dixit, and A. N. Bloch, Phys. Rev. B 30, 4842 (1984); S. Mazumdar and S. N.

Dixit, ibid. 34, 3683 (1986).

[111] K. C. Ung, S. Mazumdar, and D. Toussaint, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2603 (1994).

[112] G. Gomez-Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3780 (1993).

[113] S. Sorella and M. Parinello, in Ref. [93].

[114] S. Sorella, E. Tosatti, S. Baroni, R. Car, and M. Parinello, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 1,

993 (1988).

[115] C. Bourbonnais, H. Nelisse, A. Reid, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. B 40, 2297

(1989).

[116] M. Imada and Y. Hatsugai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 58, 3752 (1989).

[117] S. Sorella, A. Parola, M. Parinello, and E. Tosatti, Europhys. Lett. 12, 721 (1990).

[118] T. A. Kaplan, P. Horsch, and J. Borysowicz, Phys. Rev. B 35, 1877 (1987); R. R.

P. Singh, M. E. Fisher, and R. Shankar, Phys. Rev. B 39, 2562 (1989).

[119] A. Parola and S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1831 (1990).

[120] S. Sorella and A. Parola, J. Phys. CM 4, 3589 (1992).

[121] A. Parola and S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. B 45, 13156 (1992).

[122] Y. Ren and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. B 48, 16662 (1993).

[123] A. G. Izergin, V. E. Korepin, and N. Yu. Reshetikhin, J. Phys. A 22, 2615 (1989);

F. Woynarovich, ibid., p. 4243; H. Frahm and N.-C. Yu, ibid. 23, 2115 (1990).

[124] H. Frahm and V. E. Korepin, Phys. Rev. B 42, 10553 (1990).

[125] N. Kawakami and S.-K. Yang, Phys. Lett. A 148, 359 (1990).

[126] K. Penc and J. Solyom, Phys. Rev. B 47, 6273 (1993).

[127] H. Frahm and V. E. Korepin, Phys. Rev. B 43, 5653 (1991).

149

[128] R. Preuss, A. Muramatsu, W. von der Linden, P. Dieterich, F. F. Assaad, and W.

Hanke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 732 (1994).

[129] N. Kawakami and S.-K. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2309, (1990) and J. Phys. CM

3, 5983 (1991).

[130] M. Ogata, M. Luchini, S. Sorella, and F. F. Assaad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2388

(1991).

[131] C. S. Hellberg and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. B 48, 646 (1993).

[132] C. S. Hellberg and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. B 44, 1360 (1991).

[133] C. S. Hellberg and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2080 (1991).

[134] M. C. Gutzwiller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 159 (1963).

[135] F. Gebhard and D. Vollhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1472 (1987).

[136] B. Sutherland, Phys. Rev. A 4, 2019 (1971) and 5, 1372 (1972); F. D. M. Haldane,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 635 (1988); B. S. Shastry, ibid., p. 639.

[137] N. Kawakami and P. Horsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3110 (1992).

[138] C. S. Hellberg and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3111 (1992).

[139] B. Fourcade and G. Spronken, Phys. Rev. B 29, 5089 and 5096, (1984); J. E. Hirsch,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 2327 (1984); H. Q. Lin and J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. 33, 8155

(1986); J. W. Cannon and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B 41, 9435 (1990); J. W. Cannon,

R. T. Scalettar, and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B 44, 5995 (1991).

[140] A. Luther, Phys. Rev. B 14, 2153 (1976).

[141] A. Luther, Phys. Rev. B 15, 403 (1977).

[142] F. Mila and X. Zotos, Europhys. Lett. 24, 133 (1993).

[143] K. Penc and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B 49, 9670 (1994).

[144] K. Sano and Y. Ono, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 63, 1250 (1994).

[145] K. Kuroki, K. Kusakabe, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 50, 575 (1994).

[146] N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 1133 (1966); P. C. Hohenberg,

Phys. Rev. 158, 383 (1967).

[147] S. Takada, Prog. Theor. Phys. 54, 1039 (1975).

[148] P. Bak and R. Bruinsma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 249 (1982); G. V. Uimin and V. L.

Pokrovsky, J. Phys. (Paris) Lett. 44, L865 (1983); L. A. Bol’shov, V. L. Pokrovsky,

and G. V. Uimin, J. Stat. Phys. 38, 191 (1985).

150

[149] W.-P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1698 (1979) and

Phys. Rev. B 22, 2099 (1980).

[150] A. J. Heeger, S. Kivelson, J. R. Schrieffer, and W.-P. Su, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 781

(1988).

[151] T. Holstein, Ann. Phys. 8, 325 and 343 (1959).

[152] D. Feinberg, S. Chiuchi, and F. de Pasquale, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 4, 1317 (1990).

[153] J. M. Ginder and A. J. Epstein, Phys. Rev. B 41, 10674 (1990); D. Baranowski, H.

Buttner, and J. Voit, ibid. 45, 10990 (1992) and 47, 15472 (1993).

[154] J. Voit and H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B 34, 7429 (1986), 36, 968 (1985), and 37,

10068 (1988); L. G. Caron and C. Bourbonnais, Phys. Rev. B 29, 4230 (1984); C.

Bourbonnais and L. G. Caron, J. Phys. (Paris) 50, 2751 (1989).

[155] S. Engelsberg and B. B. Varga, Phys. Rev. 136, A1583 (1964); J. Voit and H.

J. Schulz, Molec. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 119, 449 (1985). An error in the treament of

acoustic phonons in this paper has been corrected by Y. Chen, D. K. K. Lee, and

M. U. Luchini, Phys. Rev. B 38, 8497 (1988).

[156] D. Loss and T. Martin, Phys. Rev. B 50, 12160 (1994).

[157] J. Voit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 323 (1990).

[158] G. T. Zimanyi, S. A. Kivelson, and A. Luther, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2089 (1988).

[159] J. Voit, Synth. Met. 27, A41 (1988).

[160] V. Meden, K. Schonhammer, and O. Gunnarsson, Phys. Rev. B 50, 11179 (1994).

[161] T. Giamarchi and H. J. Schulz, Europhys. Lett. 3, 1287 (1987), and Phys. Rev. B

37, 325 (1988).

[162] S.-T. Chui and J. W. Bray, Phys. Rev. B 16, 1329 (1977); W. Apel, J. Phys. C 15,

1973 (1982); Y. Suzumura and H. Fukuyama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 52, 2870 (1983)

and 53, 3918 (1984).

[163] A. A. Abrikosov and J. A. Ryzhkin, Adv. Phys. 27, 147 (1978).

[164] P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. Chem. Sol. 11, 26 (1959).

[165] H. Fukuyama and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 17, 535 (1978).

[166] M. Ogata and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3087, (1993).

[167] H. Basista, D. A. Bonn, T. Timusk, J. Voit, D. Jerome, and K. Bechgaard, Phys.

Rev. B 42, 4088 (1990).

151

[168] J. M. P. Carmelo and P. Horsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 871 (1992).

[169] C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1220 (1992), Phys. Rev. B

46, 7268 and 15233 (1992).

[170] W. Apel and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 26, 7063 (1982).

[171] A. Furusaki and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 47, 4631 (1993).

[172] K. A. Matveev, D. Yue, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3351 (1993).

[173] A. Furusaki and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 47, 3827 (1993).

[174] X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2206 (1990), Phys. Rev. B 41, 12838 (1990) and

43, 11025 (1991).

[175] K. Moon, H. Yi, C. L. Kane, S. M. Girvin, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett.

71, 4381 (1993).

[176] M. Fabrizio, A. O. Gogolin, and S. Scheidl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2235 (1994).

[177] H. Fukuyama, H. Kohno, and R. Shirasaki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 62, 1109 (1993).

[178] M. Ogata and H. Fukuyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 468 (1994).

[179] P. A. Lee and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 57, 287 (1985).

[180] N. F. Mott and W. D. Twose, Adv. Phys. 10, 107 (1961).

[181] J. Carmelo and A. A. Ovchinnikov, J. Phys. CM 3, 757 (1991).

[182] J. Carmelo, P. Horsch, P. A. Bares, and A. A. Ovchinnikov, Phys. Rev. B 44, 9967

(1991).

[183] J. M. P. Carmelo, P. Horsch, and A. A. Ovchinnikov, Phys. Rev. B 45, 7899 and

46, 14728 (1992).

[184] J. M. P. Carmelo, A. H. Castro Neto, and D. K. Campbell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73,

926 and Phys. Rev. B 50, 3667 and 3683 (1994).

[185] H. J. Schulz, in Strongly Correlated Electronic Materials: The Los Alamos Sympo-

sium 1993, ed. by K. S. Bedell et al., Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1994, p. 187.

[186] A. Luther and V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 589 (1974); P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev.

Lett. 34, 1247 (1973).

[187] V. J. Emery, A. Luther, and I. Peschel, Phys. Rev. B 13, 1272 (1976).

[188] S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2088 (1975).

[189] M. Fowler and X. Zotos, Phys. Rev. B 24, 2634 (1981).

152

[190] E. K. Sklyanin, L. A. Takhtadzhyan, and L. D. Faddeev, Theor. Mat. Phys. 40, 688

(1979).

[191] F. D. M. Haldane, J. Phys. A 15, 507 (1982).

[192] T. Giamarchi and H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B 33, 2066 (1986) and J. Phys. (Paris)

49, 819 (1988).

[193] H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B 22, 5274 (1980).

[194] M. Gulacsi and K. S. Bedell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2765 (1994).

[195] V. L. Pokrovsky and A. L. Talapov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 65 (1979).

[196] V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1076 (1990).

[197] C. A. Stafford and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B 48, 1409, (1993).

[198] H. Eskes and A. Oles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1279 (1994).

[199] P. M. Chaikin, R. L. Greene, S. Etemad, and E. Engler, Phys. Rev. B 13, 1627

(1976).

[200] E. B. Kolomeisky, Phys. Rev. B 47, 6193 (1993).

[201] J. P. Straley and E. B. Kolomeisky, Phys. Rev. B 48, 1378 (1993).

[202] B. Horovitz, T. Bohr, J. M. Kosterlitz, and H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. 28, 6596 (1983).

[203] W. Gotze and P. Wolfle, Phys. Rev. B 6, 1226 (1972).

[204] T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B 46, 342 (1992).

[205] M. Mori, H. Fukuyama, and M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 63, 1639 (1994).

[206] H. Pang, S. Liang, and J. F. Annett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 4377 (1993).

[207] E. B. Kolomeisky, Phys. Rev. B 48, 4998 (1993).

[208] M. Ma, Phys. Rev. B 26, 5097 (1982).

[209] P. Horsch and W. Stephan, Phys. Rev. B 48, 10 595, (1993).

[210] W. F. Brinkman and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 2, 1324 (1970).

[211] K. J. von Szczepanski, P. Horsch, W. Stephan, and M. Ziegler, Phys. Rev. B 41,

2017 (1990); M. Ziegler and P. Horsch, in Dynamics of Magnetic Fluctuations in

High-Temperature Superconductors, ed. by G. Reiter and P. Horsch, Plenum Press,

New York, 1991, p.329.

[212] K. Penc and J. Solyom, Phys. Rev. B 41, 704 (1990).

153

[213] A. A. Nersesyan, Phys. Lett. A 153, 49 (1991).

[214] G. Montambaux, M. Heritier, and P. Lederer, Phys. Rev. B 33, 7777 (1986).

[215] K. A. Muttalib and V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1370 (1986).

[216] I. Affleck and J. B. Marston, Phys. Rev. B 37, 3774 (1988); A. B. Harris, T. C.

Lubensky, and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. B 40, 2631 (1989).

[217] C. M. Varma and A. Zawadowski, Phys. Rev. B 32, 7399 (1985).

[218] P. Nozieres, Ann. Phys. Fr. 10, 19 (1985).

[219] L. G. Caron and C. Bourbonnais, Europhys. Lett. 11, 473 (1990).

[220] V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 2794 (1987); C. M. Varma, S. Schmitt-Rink, and

E. Abrahams, Sol. State Comm. 62, 681 (1987).

[221] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics, Pergamon Press, London

(1959), p. 482.

[222] V. N. Prigodin and Yu. A. Firsov, Sov. Phys. JETP 49, 369 and 813 (1979).

[223] P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 3844 (1991).

[224] R. A. Klemm and H. Gutfreund, Phys. Rev. B 14, 1086 (1976).

[225] P. A. Lee, T. M. Rice, and R. A. Klemm, Phys. Rev. B 15, 2984, (1977).

[226] L. P. Gor’kov and I. E. Dzyaloshinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 40, 198 (1975).

[227] W. A. Little, Phys. Rev. 134, A1416 (1964).

[228] S. Barisic, J. Phys. (Paris) 44, 185 (1983); S. Botric and S. Barisic, ibid. 45, 185

(1984).

[229] X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 42, 6623 (1990).

[230] F. V. Kusmartsev, A. Luther, and A. Nersesyan, JETP Lett. 55, 724 (1992); V.

Yakovenko, ibid. 56, 510 (1992).

[231] S. Brazovskii and V. Yakovenko, J. Phys. (Paris) Lett. 46, L-111 (1985); Sov. Phys.

JETP 62, 1340 (1985); J. Phys. (Paris) 47, 175 (1986).

[232] C. Bourbonnais and L. G. Caron, Europhys. Lett. 5, 209 (1988).

[233] D. G. Clarke, S. P. Strong, and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3218 (1994).

[234] M. Fabrizio and A. Parola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 226 (1993).

[235] M. Fabrizio, Phys. Rev. B 48, 15838 (1993).

154

[236] A. M. Finkel’stein and A. I. Larkin, Phys. Rev. B 47, 10461 (1993).

[237] C. Castellani, D. di Castro, and W. Metzner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1703 (1992).

[238] M. Fabrizio, A. Parola, and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. B 46, 3159 (1992).

[239] R. M. Noack, S. R. White, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 882 (1994).

[240] Y. Asai, Phys. Rev. B 50, 6519 (1994).

[241] T. M. Rice, S. Gopalan, and M. Sigrist, Europhys. Lett. 23, 445 (1993).

[242] S. P. Strong and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2419 (1992); T. Barnes, E.

Dagotto, J. Riera, and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. B 47, 3196 (1993); S. Gopalan,

T. M. Rice, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. B 49, 8901 (1994).

[243] D. V. Khveshchenko, Phys. Rev. B 50, 386 (1994).

[244] H. Tsunetsugu, M. Troyer, and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 49, 16078 (1994).

[245] J. Voit and E. J. Mele, Synth. Met. 43, 3911 (1991).

[246] D. Poilblanc, H. Tsunetsugu, and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 50, 6511 (1994).

[247] J. A. Riera, Phys. Rev. B 49, 3629 (1994).

[248] D. Boies, C. Bourbonnais, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 968 (1995).

[249] P. Kopietz, V. Meden, and K. Schonhammer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2997 (1995).

[250] R. Valenti and C. Gros, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2402 (1992) and (E) 69, 996 (1992);

C. Gros and R. Valenti, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 7, 119 (1993).

[251] Y. C. Chen and T. K. Lee, Z. Phys. B 95, 5 (1994).

[252] W. O. Putikka, R. L. Glenister, R. R. P. Singh, and H. Tsunetsugu, Phys. Rev.

Lett. 73, 170 (1994).

[253] Y. C. Chen, A. Moreo, F. Ortolani, E. Dagotto, and T. K. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 50,

655 (1994); C. Gros and R. Valenti, ibid., p. 11313; T. Tohyama, P. Horsch, and S.

Maekawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 980 (1995).

[254] C. Castellani, C. Di Castro, and W. Metzner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 316 (1994).

[255] T. Holstein, R. E. Norton, and P. Pincus, Phys. Rev. B 8, 2649 (1973); M. Yu.

Reizer, Phys. Rev. B 39, 1602 (1989) and 40 11571 (1989); F. Guinea and G.

Zimanyi, Phys. Rev. B 47, 501 (1993); P. A. Bares and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B

48, 8636 (1993); D. V. Khveshchenko, R. Hlubina, and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B

48, 10766 (1993); R. Hlubina, Phys. Rev. B 50, 8252 (1994).

155

[256] A. Luther, Phys. Rev. B. 19, 320 (1979); R. Shankar, Physica A 177, 530 (1991)

and Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 129 (1994); A. Houghton and J. B. Marston, Phys. Rev.

B 48, 7790 (1993); A. Houghton, H.-J. Kwon, and J. B. Marston, Phys. Rev. B 50,

1351 (1994); A. H. Castro Neto and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1393 (1994)

and Phys. Rev. B 49, 10877 (1994).

[257] The Quantum Hall Effect, ed. by R. E. Prange and S. M. Girvin, Springer Verlag,

New York, 1987.

[258] K. von Klitzing, G. Dorda, and M. Pepper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 494 (1980).

[259] D. C. Tsui, H. L. Sormer, and A. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1559 (1982).

[260] B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 25, 2185 (1982).

[261] M. Buttiker, Phys. Rev. B 38, 9375 (1988).

[262] For a review, see X.-G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 6, 1711 (1992).

[263] M. Stone, Ann. Phys. (NY) 207, 38 (1991) and Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 5, 509 (1991).

[264] M. D. Johnson and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2060 (1991).

[265] D. Jerome and H. J. Schulz, in Extended Linear Chain Compounds, Vol. 2, edited

by J. S. Miller, Plenum Press, New York (1982).

[266] J. P. Pouget, S. K. Khanna, F. Denoyer, R. Comes, A. F. Garito, and A. J. Heeger,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 437 (1976).

[267] S. Kagoshima, T. Ishiguro, and H. Anzai, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 41, 2061 (1976).

[268] S. Klotz, J. S. Schilling, M. Weger, and K. Bechgaard, Phys. Rev. B 38, 5878 (1988).

[269] T. Takahashi, D. Jerome, F. Masin, J. M. Fabre, and L. Giral, J. Phys. C 17, 3777

(1984).

[270] J. B. Torrance, in Ref. [25].

[271] J. P. Pouget, R. Comes, A. J. Epstein, and J. S. Miller, Molec. Cryst. Liq. Cryst.

85, 1593 (1982).

[272] J. Skov Pedersen and K. Carneiro, Rep. Prog. Phys. 50, 995 (1987).

[273] S. Tomic, J. R. Cooper, and K. Bechgaard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 462 (1989).

[274] D. Jerome, A. Mazaud, M. Ribault, and K. Bechgaard, J. Phys. Lett. (Paris) 41,

L95 (1980).

[275] S. S. P. Parkin, M. Ribault, D. Jerome, and K. Bechgaard, J. Phys. C 14, 5305

(1981).

156

[276] L. Forro, J. R. Cooper, B. Rothaemel, J. S. Schilling, M. Weger, and K. Bechgaard,

Solid State Comm. 60, 11 (1986).

[277] R. Bozio, M. Meneghetti, D. Pedron, and C. Pecile, Synth. Met. 27, B129 (1988).

[278] R. Bozio, M. Meneghetti, and C. Pecile, J. Chem. Phys. 76, 5785 (1982).

[279] M. J. Rice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 36 (1976).

[280] C. Bourbonnais, F. Creuzet, D. Jerome, K. Bechgaard, and A. Moradpour, J. Phys

(Paris) Lett. 45, L-755 (1984).

[281] P. Wzietek, F. Creuzet, C. Bourbonnais, D. Jerome, and A. Moradpour, J. Phys.

(Paris) I 3, 171 (1993).

[282] C. Bourbonnais, in Ref. [25].

[283] C. Bourbonnais, J. Phys. (Paris) I 3, 143 (1993).

[284] L. Ducasse, M. Abderraba, J. Hoarau, M. Pesquer, B. Gallois, and J. Gaultier, J.

Phys. C 19, 3805 (1986).

[285] G. Soda, D. Jerome, M. Weger, J. M. Fabre, and L. Giral, Solid State Comm. 18,

1417 (1976).

[286] G. Soda, D. Jerome, M. Weger, J. Alizon, J. Gallice, H. Robert, J. M. Fabre, and

L. Giral, J. Phys. (Paris) 38, 931 (1977).

[287] P. C. Stein, A. Moradpour, and D. Jerome, J. Phys. Lett. (Paris) 46, 241 (1985).

[288] B. Dardel, D. Malterre, M. Grioni, P. Weibel, Y. Baer, J. Voit, and D. Jerome,

Europhys. Lett. 24, 687 (1993).

[289] F. Mila and K. Penc, Synth. Met. 70, 997 (1995).

[290] Electronic Properties of Inorganic Quasi-One-Dimensional Compounds, vol. 1 and

2, edited by P. Monceau, D. Reidel Publ. Comp., Dordrecht (1985).

[291] P. A. Lee, T. M. Rice, and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 462 (1973).

[292] C. Schlenker and J. Dumas, in Crystal Chemistry and Properties of Materials with

Quasi-One-Dimensional Structures, ed. by J. Rouxel, D. Reidel Publ. Comp., Dor-

drecht, 1986, p. 135.

[293] B. Dardel, D. Malterre, M. Grioni, P. Weibel, Y. Baer, and F. Levy, Phys. Rev. Lett.

67, 3144 (1991); J.-Y. Veuillen, R. C. Cinti, and E. Al Khoury Nemeh, Europhys.

Lett. 3, 355 (1987).

[294] Y. Hwu, P. Almeras, M. Marsi, H. Berger, F. Levy, M. Grioni, D. Malterre, and G.

Margaritondo, Phys. Rev. B 46, 13624 (1992)

157

[295] K. E. Smith, K. Breuer, M. Greenblatt, and W. McCarrol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70,

3772 (1993).

[296] L. Degiorgi, G. Gruner, K. Kim, R. H. McKenzie, and P. Wachter, Phys. Rev. B

49, 14754 (1994).

[297] K. Kim, R. H. McKenzie, and J. W. Wilkins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 4015 (1993).

[298] N. Nakamura, A. Sekiyama, H. Namatame, A. Fujimori, H. Yoshihara, T. Ohtani,

A. Misu, and M. Takano, Phys. Rev. B 49, 16191 (1994).

[299] U. Meirav, M. A. Kastner, M. Heiblum, and S. J. Wind, Phys. Rev. B 40, 5871

(1989).

[300] F. P. Milliken, C. P. Umbach, and R. A. Webb, unpublished; also reported by B.

Gross Levi, Physics Today 47, 21 (1994).

158

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: The Peierls instability: the presence of an interaction component with wave

vector q ≈ 2kF in a 1D electron gas (left) hybridizes the two Fermi points ±kF and,

in a mean-field description, opens a gap at the Fermi level (middle). Responsible is the

logarithmic 2kF divergence in the particle-hole bubble (right).

Figure 2.2: Diagrams contributing to the self-energy to second order.

Figure 2.3: The Bethe-Salpeter equation. Γ is the complete particle-hole interaction, I

the irreducible one. Solid lines are Green’s functions.

Figure 3.1: Particle-hole excitations in 1D (left). The spectrum (right) has no low-

frequency excitations with 0 ≤| q |≤ 2kF unlike in higher dimensions where these states

are filled in.

Figure 3.2: The Luttinger model. Dispersion (left) and forward scattering processes

(right). Solid lines denote electrons propagating with kF and dashed lines those propa-

gating with −kF .

Figure 3.3: Backward (g1⊥) and Umklapp (g3⊥) scattering not included in the Luttinger

model. Scattering particles have antiparallel spin here.

Figure 3.4: Dyson equation for the density correlation function Rρρ.

Figure 3.5: Dyson equation for the polarization. λρ represents the bare vertex.

Figure 3.6: Luttinger model spectral function ρ+(q, ω) for q ≥ 0 and α = 0.125. The

ω < 0-part has been multiplied by 10 for clarity.

Figure 3.7: Dynamical charge and spin structure factors of the Luttinger model. S(q, ω)

and S4(q, ω) are the 2kF - and 4kF -CDW structure factors, and χ(q, ω) is the magnetic

structure factor close to 2kF .

Figure 4.1: Linearized renormalization group flow of g1⊥ and Kσ for the backscattering

Hamiltonian. The line g⋆1⊥ = 0, K⋆

σ ≥ 1 is the Luttinger liquid fixed line.

Figure 4.2: Phase diagram of the one-dimensional Fermi liquid off half-filling. The

system is a Luttinger liquid at g1⊥ ≥ 0 where K⋆σ = 1. Fluctuations indicated in paren-

thesis have the same exponents as the dominant ones but are logarithmically weaker.

At g1⊥ < 0, there is a spin gap, and formally K⋆σ = 0. Here, fluctuations appearing in

parenthesis diverge with a smaller power-law exponent than the dominant ones.

159

Figure 4.3: Momentum distribution n(k) of the quarter-filled Hubbard model in the limit

U/t→ ∞ as calculated from the Bethe Ansatz equations (4.32) and (4.33). (Anti)periodic

boundary conditions were used for 4n+ 2-(4n-)site lattices, respectively. From ref. [107],

Fig. 3.

Figure 4.4 The correlation exponent Kρ of the Hubbard model as a function of band-

filling n for different values of U (U/t = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 from top to bottom). From ref. [42],

Fig. 3.

Figure 4.5: The charge and spin velocities vρ (full line) and vσ (dash-dotted lines) of the

Hubbard model as a function of bandfilling for different U/t. U/t = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 from top

to bottom for vσ and from bottom to top for vρ in the left part of the Figure. From ref.

[42], Fig. 1. uρ,σ are denoted vρ,σ in our text.

Figure 4.6: Phase diagram of the t−J-model determined from variational wavefunctions.

“Repulsive Luttinger” stands for a Luttinger liquid with dominant SDW correlations, and

“attractive Luttinger” for one with dominant TS. The spin-gap phase has dominant SS.

The dashed line corresponds to Kρ = 1. From ref. [131], Fig. 1.

Figure 4.7: Phase diagram of the extended Hubbard model at quarter-filling. I is an in-

sulating 4kF -CDW state, M the metallic, repulsive Luttinger liquid and SC an attractive

Luttinger liquid with superconducting correlations. The dashed lines are lines of constant

Kρ. From [142], Fig. 1.

Figure 6.1: Dispersion relations of two hybridized bands and their linearized approxi-

mations. In (a) two particle-like bands hybridize. In (b) a particle-like band hybridizes

with a hole-like band leading to different signs of the Fermi velocities on the same side of

the dispersion. From Ref. [212], Figs. 1+2. (a) contains (a) from both Fig. 1 and Fig. 2;

same applies to (b).

Figure 6.2: Cut at ky = 0 through the Brillouin zone of a system of weakly coupled

chains. The shaded area indicates occupied electron states. From Ref. [15], Fig. 1.7.

Their k0F is denoted by k1D

F in our text.

Figure 6.3: Generation of transverse hopping corrections to the propagation of correlated

particle-particle or particle-hole pairs. The thick (thin) lines refer to 3D (1D) propagators

in the high-energy shell eliminated by the renormalization group transformation. Time

arrows and spin indices can be put depending on the (CDW, SDW, SS, TS)-operator un-

der consideration, and the full square then denotes its effective combination of coupling

constants. From Ref. [22], Fig. 9.

Figure 6.4: Phase diagram for the quarter-filled two-chain Hubbard model from renor-

malization group. The different phases are explained in the text. From Ref. [235], Fig. 9.

160

ρ in the inset is denoted by n in our text.

Figure 6.5: Electronic structure for the integer quantum Hall effect on an annulus of

radii r1 and r2. The shaded areas indicate localized states. From Ref. [260], Fig. 3.

Figure 7.1: Structure of the molecule tetramethyl-tetraselenafulvalene and schematic

stacking pattern of the (TMTSF )2X-crystals.

Figure 7.2: Real part of the optical conductivity of TTF − TCNQ at 85 K along the

chain axis for two different samples (trial 1 and 2). Notice the suppression of conductivity

with respect to a Drude model at low frequency. From Ref. [167], Fig. 6.

Figure 7.3: 77Se-NMR spin-lattice relaxation rate T−11 as a function of temperature in

(TMTSF )2ClO4. The different symbols denote different fields. Shown in the inset is

the theoretical profile for T−11 for two values of the exponent αSDW . T 1

X is the single-

particle crossover temperature, and E0 marks the temperature where the 2kF -SDW be-

comes stronger than the q ≈ 0-fluctuations. From Ref. [280], Fig. 1 (main figure) and

5(a) (inset). η is αSDW in our text and TX is T 1X .

Figure 7.4: HeII photoemission spectrum of (TMTSF )2PF6 at T = 50K. The HeI-

spectrum in the insert has a better statistics and clearly shows that there is no spectral

weight near the Fermi surface. From Ref. [288], Figure 1.

Figure 7.5: Tunneling conductance through a constriction in a ν = 1/3 quantum Hall

state as a function of temperature. Different curves refer to different voltages on the point

contact forming the constriction. The Luttinger liquid prediction is G(T ) ∼ T 4. From

the preprint of Ref. [300] and Physics Today (p.23).

161

-kf kf

k

E(k)

V(2kf)

-kf kf

k

E(k)

2∆ ~-kf

~kf

q ω

q

ω(q)

-2kF 2kF

k

E(k)

|g1⊥ |

Kσ-1

CH3

CH3 CH3

CH3 Se

Se

Se

Se

TMTSF

TMTSF

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Σ = + + + + …

123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456

g2

g4

ε(k)

k -kf kf

Γ Ι Ι Ι

Ι Ι

Γ = + + … = +

g1⊥ g3⊥

123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678123456789012345678

= +

+ ...

Rρρ Πρ

gρ Πρ Πρ

=

Πρ G Λρ λρ

G

-.01

0

-.00

5

.000

.005

.010

.000

.001

.002

.003

.004

.005

0

500

1000

-.01

0

-.00

5

.000

.005

.010

.000

.001

.002

.003

.004

.005

0

500

000

q

ω

ρ

α=

0.12

5

×10

ω

ω

-vρq

-vρq

vρq

vρq

-vσq vσq

S(q,ω) χ(q,ω)

(ω-vσq)Kρ-½ |ω-vρq|Kρ

S4(q,ω)

(ω-vρq)2Kρ-1